Grok generates fake Taylor Swift nudes without being asked

Viral marketing and product strategy

• Many see this as deliberate “spicy AI” positioning and viral marketing, tapping strong demand for NSFW image/video gen and “edgelord” culture.
• Some note xAI seems to be explicitly targeting the adult/companion AI niche while other labs chase a more “respectable” image.
• Others highlight xAI’s inconsistent product rollout across platforms and the generally chaotic UX.

“Spicy” mode, expectations, and headline framing

• Debate centers on whether choosing “spicy” plus “Taylor Swift celebrating Coachella with the boys” counts as “asking” for nudity.
• Some argue that in an age-gated setting, “spicy” obviously implies sexual content and the outrage is performative.
• Others say “spicy” is vague; they expected sass or mild flirtation, not topless deepfakes of a specific person.
• Several commenters call the article’s “without being asked” framing misleading; the setting itself is seen as an implicit request.

Consent, harm, and legality of deepfakes

• Strong consensus across many comments: the real issue is non‑consensual sexual imagery, not porn per se.
• People distinguish between private fantasies and distributing AI-generated nudes of real individuals.
• Some note that deepfake porn is already illegal in many jurisdictions and conflicts with the platform’s own “zero tolerance” policies.
• There’s concern about school-age abuse scenarios (fake nudes of classmates) even when everyone “knows” they’re fake.

Porn, culture, and male loneliness

• One line of discussion: AI porn might gut the human porn industry, which some would welcome, but it doesn’t solve consent issues.
• Others connect this to “male loneliness” and argue companies are monetizing emotional and sexual scarcity while simultaneously lamenting falling birth rates.
• There’s a side debate over cultural prudishness versus porn normalization and whether mainstreaming porn is socially harmful.

Guardrails, corporate responsibility, and double standards

• Some criticize the reporter’s testing (including probing for CSAM) as psychologically dubious.
• Others focus on corporate double standards: individuals are punished for deepfake porn, while platforms treat it as a growth/engagement lever.
• Several argue tools should at least refuse erotic images of identifiable real people; others worry most risk will come from unregulated local models.