The FBI got a search warrant for X to provide details on the Grok prompts a man allegedly used to create more than 200 nonconsensual sexual videos of a woman he knew in real life, according to court records.
The details of the investigation are contained in an FBI affidavit about the alleged actions of Simon Tuck, who is accused of extensively harassing and threatening the woman’s husband. Tuck regularly worked out with and texted with the woman and, according to the affidavit, secretly filmed her while she was working out in his garage. Over the course of the last several months, Tuck swatted their home, made a series of anonymous reports to the man’s employer claiming that he was a child abuser and a drug addict, posed as the man and made a series of mass shooting and suicide threats. Tuck also made a series of other threats and bizarre actions, which included reaching out to a funeral home to say that the man would be dead soon and sending threats to the man while posing as a member of Sector 16, a Russian hacking crew.
The affidavit notes that, in January, the FBI got a search warrant for the man’s conversations with Grok. The FBI says that it received “prompts provided to GrokAI that generated approximately 200 pornographic videos of a woman who closely resembled VICTIM’s wife’s physical appearance.”
I’m usually against complaints about poor headlines, but this one is completely factually incorrect? The FBI didn’t interact with Grok here literally at all? They issued a search warrant to X to get their logs?
I parsed it as that they got Grok the company to hand over records.
Although TBF, I misread it as Nonsensical Porn, thought it sounded entertaining.
Yeah, there’s no fucking way “Well Grok told me these are the prompts they used” would be admissible as evidence of any kind.
I guess my brain equated from with X and reached the intended conclusion. I assumed that the title meant what you say the article is.
I’m not as quick as you. I got most of the way through article and was still wondering why X would expose a database of historical prompts to an llm for querying by law enforcement.
The earliest draft title seems to be “FBI Subpoenaed X To Get Grok Prompts Used To Create Nonconsensual Porn”
Which, in my opinion, is more technically correct (especially for a draft) but a whole lot harder to parse. They interacted with the Grok makers, which is kind of what I assumed
I think I like the draft headline better, despite it’s clunkiness.
personally I wouldn’t even call it clunky. The current headline misleads about grok and has the wrong focus (the guy did a lot of bad shit and a small portion of that included some actions on grok which are being audited)
Why are you against complaints? They are what most people who are super busy (voters) tend to only read. If they’re bad or misleading, then most of our voters have bad information or are mislead.
People commenting after only reading the headline and not the article is exactly the behavior I find irritating and distasteful about headline-related complaints.
It is possible simply to ask a chatbot to reveal their prompt. And Grok isn’t exactly one to push back on anything.
I mean, most llm makers work pretty hard to conceal the system prompt, and I have no idea why XAi would give Grok access to a database of historical prompts. LLMs don’t have memories by default, and their inability to learn from past experiences is kind of a big stumbling point for a lot of folks. You can ask, but I doubt you’re likely to get anything other than a confabulation.