AI Model Grok Introduces New Restrictions on Image Editing Features
AI model Grok has introduced new restrictions that prevent users from creating or editing images of real people in revealing or undressed forms. The decision was announced by the company on X after rising concerns about misuse of the tool, including the creation of sexualised deepfake images. The move comes amid pressure from regulators, governments, and child safety advocates across multiple countries.
AI model Grok is developed under Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence initiative and is integrated into the X platform. Initially promoted as a powerful and open-ended AI system, Grok’s image editing abilities quickly drew attention for the wrong reasons. Reports surfaced that users were manipulating images of real individuals, including minors, prompting legal and ethical alarm.
The company stated that technical safeguards have now been implemented to block such edits. These changes aim to ensure that Grok cannot be used to remove clothing or create sexually explicit images of real people, regardless of intent.
AI Model Grok Changes Follow Legal Pressure and Public Backlash
The restrictions were introduced after a probe by California’s top prosecutor, who examined whether the platform failed to prevent harmful use of artificial intelligence. Authorities raised serious concerns that the tool enabled the creation and circulation of AI-generated sexual content without consent. The involvement of children in some reported cases escalated the issue from a content policy matter to a potential criminal concern.
In the United Kingdom, media regulator Ofcom described the decision as a welcome development. However, the regulator confirmed that its investigation into whether the platform violated UK online safety laws is still ongoing. This indicates that while the new restrictions are acknowledged, they may not fully address past failures or legal responsibilities.
The UK government also responded strongly. Officials claimed vindication after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer publicly called on X to take immediate control of its AI tools. The government has consistently argued that AI platforms must be held to the same safety standards as other digital services, especially when they have the ability to generate or alter images of real people.
This episode highlights growing international pressure on AI companies to act before harm occurs, rather than responding only after public outrage or legal action.
AI Model Grok Now Limits Image Editing to Paid Users Only
Alongside the ban on creating revealing images, X reiterated that only paid subscribers will be able to use Grok’s image editing features at all. While this does not directly address misuse, the company claims that limiting access allows for better monitoring, accountability, and enforcement of rules.
Critics argue that paywalls alone do not guarantee ethical use, but supporters believe the move reduces anonymous abuse and makes it easier to track violations. The company has not clarified whether additional verification measures will be introduced for users accessing advanced AI features.
View this post on Instagram
The broader issue goes beyond Grok. Governments worldwide are increasingly questioning how AI tools are released to the public without sufficient safeguards. Image-based AI, in particular, has become a major concern due to its ability to manipulate reality, damage reputations, and cause psychological harm. Also Read: Institutional Human Knowledge Must Anchor Strong Accountable AI for Parliaments: Deputy Chairman Harivansh: 2026
Experts note that once harmful content spreads online, it is almost impossible to fully remove. This makes prevention far more important than reaction. The Grok case is now being viewed as a test example of how AI companies respond when innovation clashes with public safety.
Conclusion
AI model Grok’s new restrictions mark a significant shift in how AI-generated images are controlled on major platforms. While the changes address immediate concerns, investigations and regulatory pressure continue. The situation reflects a wider global demand for stronger accountability in artificial intelligence, especially when real people’s identities and safety are at stake.
