Elon Musk's xAI loses second bid to block Minnesota's AI nudify-app ban

midian182

Posts: 11,887   +181
Staff member
Recap: xAI has failed in its second attempt to kill off a Minnesota law that would ban AI-generated nudify apps in the state. US District Judge Donovan Frank denied the company's motion to block the first-in-the-nation rule on the grounds that xAI had failed to demonstrate it would suffer irreparable harm while its legal challenge proceeds.

On August 1, Minnesota banned apps and websites that allow users to generate non-consensual sexualized imagery. The companies behind these services can be fined $500,000 for each unlawful access or download of images that were altered to make someone appear naked or worse, which could add up to the hundreds of millions or even billions very quickly.

Fearing these punishments, xAI filed a lawsuit against the state in July. Musk's firm wrote that the law is an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a "clumsy attempt to prohibit nudification." It noted that a business whose users generated 100,000 of these images would be charged $50 billion.

Frank denied a motion from xAI at the end of July that would have stopped the law from taking effect. On Friday, the judge denied a second motion, ruling that xAI failed to show it would suffer harm while pursuing its lawsuit.

"Because xAI has not demonstrated irreparable harm and the balance of harms tips steeply in favor of the State, xAI's motion for a preliminary injunction is denied," Frank wrote.

xAI says that the law is a violation of the First Amendment, and that it could count AI generations of shirtless men, harmless AI generations in swimwear, and satirical images as deepfakes. It claimed, as an example, that an AI-generated image it provides of Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as sumo wrestlers could be considered a violation.

Given xAI's history when it comes to this sort of thing, the lawsuit isn't a big shock. Its chatbot Grok made plenty of headlines at the start of the year for the thousands of "undressing" deepfakes it was generating every hour, including images of minors.

xAI also says that it has been punishing any of its users who use Grok to create child-exploitation images. It claims to have suspended 52,222 accounts and made 73,604 reports to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) in 2026, resulting in at least 244 arrests.

xAI emphasizes that it strictly prohibits its users from generating nude or sexualized images of people without their consent. But there's no denying that launching a lawsuit against a state over an anti-deepfake law isn't a good look.

Permalink to story:

 
If they aren't being disingenuous, what people reasoning like this don't grasp is that, like the laws of physics, rights are a unity: one right is not to be held up to the detriment of other rights. Every action should be consistent with the whole list.
 
So I can't alter a photo of someone to make them naked... but I can alter it to make it appear they are murdering a bunch of innocent civilians... maybe we should outlaw that too... oh... and maybe make it illegal to alter a photo making it appear someone is committing a crime... and....

It's a slippery slope... why is "nude" the point where people are outraged?
 
So I can't alter a photo of someone to make them naked... but I can alter it to make it appear they are murdering a bunch of innocent civilians... maybe we should outlaw that too... oh... and maybe make it illegal to alter a photo making it appear someone is committing a crime... and....

It's a slippery slope... why is "nude" the point where people are outraged?
Because nudity is easy. Even if you have no problem with it, you can't say so, because others that also have no problem with it will still point the finger at you. So, laws about nudity get little resistance because the grownups that secretly don't see it as a problem don't want to be labeled a pervert.
And worse, the lazy politicians that knew it would be easy pickings get their "hard work" in the headlines and call themselves champions of the family.
 
Last edited:
Free speech goes both ways. If someone did not do or say something, like take nude pictures of themselves, and AI can convincingly make it appear that they did, a person ought to have the right to legally maintain that they didn't actually do said thing.

That and it nudifies kids.
 
Because nudity is easy. Even if you have no problem with it, you can't say so, because others that also have no problem with it will still point the finger at you. So, laws about nudity get little resistance because the grownups that secretly don't see it as a problem don't want to be labeled a pervert.
And worse, the lazy politicians that knew it would be easy pickings get their "hard work" in the headlines and call themselves champions of the family.
I may be wrong but on the EU side (NL for me) things seem a lot more relaxed.
Random example: I like to walk on the coast from one city to the next (NL has world class beaches) - on the nude parts I go nude, on the other stretches I wear a bit of clothing.
No one bats an eye, not on the beach and not in discussions. It's 100% normal.
Because of this I may appear in random pictures, either dressed or not - still normal.
It may come as a surprise to some but everyone's nude under their clothing.
Nudity isn't DIRTY or BAD otherwise we'd all be BOTH.
Some have pretty bodies and some don't though that's also an area where people's tastes differ.
N-O-R-M-A-L. - I could fill the page but will end here. *waves at silly people
 
I wonder how hard Elon would fight it if someone posted nudes of him (with his allegedly surgically mutilated genitals after his failed Elon-gation surgery) all over the Internet?
 
I remember back a few years ago in a world where society had common sense and was far less toxic than today, where laws didn't have to be written simply because most mature people we knew it wasn't right for society....

Now I can't believe we have to write laws to prevent companies from promoting indecency, in this case pornographic capable tools that could be at the reach to anyone with a portable device.

And the worst of all...there out there people defending companies like that.

Society have truly gone to the point of mo return....and all more palpable since the rise to politics of certain indecent MAGA Republicans.
 
I may be wrong but on the EU side (NL for me) things seem a lot more relaxed.
Random example: I like to walk on the coast from one city to the next (NL has world class beaches) - on the nude parts I go nude, on the other stretches I wear a bit of clothing.
No one bats an eye, not on the beach and not in discussions. It's 100% normal.
Because of this I may appear in random pictures, either dressed or not - still normal.
It may come as a surprise to some but everyone's nude under their clothing.
Nudity isn't DIRTY or BAD otherwise we'd all be BOTH.
Some have pretty bodies and some don't though that's also an area where people's tastes differ.
N-O-R-M-A-L. - I could fill the page but will end here. *waves at silly people
Going to a nude beach is a decision you make. Being depicted as naked by AI is not.

Plus, it's not like these things just stop at nudity. Someone can take a person's Facebook profile pic and turn it into a video of the person in a gang bang, or worse.
 
And what's stopping me from downloading any AI app already cracked on a torrent site then doing what I want with it😂 I can make hundreds of deepfake nudity then share it as a torrent.
 
I wonder how hard Elon would fight it if someone posted nudes of him (with his allegedly surgically mutilated genitals after his failed Elon-gation surgery) all over the Internet?
You would get banned immediately on all his platforms, because to Elon Musk "free speech" means you agree with everything he says and does. As soon as you disagree with him or do or say something he doesn't like, suddenly "free speech" no longer applies to you. It's a great tool, you can use it justify doing/saying anything you want.
 
And what's stopping me from downloading any AI app already cracked on a torrent site then doing what I want with it😂 I can make hundreds of deepfake nudity then share it as a torrent.

Laws like this proposed Minnesota law. That laws can be broken is stating the obvious, or redundant.
 
Going to a nude beach is a decision you make. Being depicted as naked by AI is not.

Plus, it's not like these things just stop at nudity. Someone can take a person's Facebook profile pic and turn it into a video of the person in a gang bang, or worse.
So?
You mean gangbangs real or imagined are super bad, right?
Skipping that particular subject my guess is that if these fake vids happen often people will quickly get tired of it. Or maybe they weren't interested to begin with you know, like sane people.
Personally I think people shouldn't GAF what others think.
 
So?
You mean gangbangs real or imagined are super bad, right?
Skipping that particular subject my guess is that if these fake vids happen often people will quickly get tired of it. Or maybe they weren't interested to begin with you know, like sane people.
Personally I think people shouldn't GAF what others think.

So.. you don't care if people use your image, so noone should.
Please tell us more about how enlightened you are for not caring.
 
So I can't alter a photo of someone to make them naked... but I can alter it to make it appear they are murdering a bunch of innocent civilians... maybe we should outlaw that too... oh... and maybe make it illegal to alter a photo making it appear someone is committing a crime... and....

It's a slippery slope... why is "nude" the point where people are outraged?

this EVERYONE involved in AI should be deleted immediately.. glad someone finally agrees.
 
Can anyone point to a positive use of 'nudifying' someone? The only one I can come up with is plastic surgery. I.e. 'This is what you might look like.' Anything outside of that is just someone being creepy or lame. Elon's intended uses are creepy and lame.
 
I'm surprised laws like this haven't been struck down by SCOTUS. Does the law render unauthorized paintings or drawings not based on existing unauthorized access nudes illegal? It strikes me as criminalizing imagination.
 
Back