Elon Musk - the world's "greatest" spiv?

[nw1]

Obviously if large businesses lobby for what they want and see growth, an economy which consists of them will see growth. That doesn't necessarily mean it will translate into a desirable outcome for everyone else.

Indeed, if the likes of Altman, Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos et al become trillionaires while many of the rest of us are out of a job and living on the breadline, who is it good for?

I realise regulation is seen as dinosaur-like but I am afraid I believe that certain usages of AI need to be very heavily regulated indeed. Including where its use could result in the mass loss of jobs.

Ethical and helpful uses of AI I am absolutely fine with. It's the unethical uses I am not.

 

[SuspectUsual]

am afraid I believe that certain usages of AI need to be very heavily regulated indeed. Including where its use could result in the mass loss of jobs.

That's a really interesting take.

I think it's absolutely right to regulate - if possible - the unethical use of AI, for example to create and propagate lies, but to regulate something that causes job losses? That's basically the Luddites isn't it? Was mechanisation wrong, for example? Is automation in places like warehouses wrong?

 

[nw1]

That's a really interesting take.

I think it's absolutely right to regulate - if possible - the unethical use of AI, for example to create and propagate lies, but to regulate something that causes job losses? That's basically the Luddites isn't it? Was mechanisation wrong, for example? Is automation in places like warehouses wrong?

I see what you mean but I am concerned that AI threatens a far wider range of jobs than anything we've seen for a long time.

 

[brad465]

That's a really interesting take.

I think it's absolutely right to regulate - if possible - the unethical use of AI, for example to create and propagate lies, but to regulate something that causes job losses? That's basically the Luddites isn't it? Was mechanisation wrong, for example? Is automation in places like warehouses wrong?

I could see a form of AI populism emerging in politics if AI progresses a long way: the underlying causes of populism in recent years include outsourcing of primary and secondary industry jobs abroad, and more recently also cost of living matters. If AI takes lots of jobs, and/or causes a huge spike in costs for tech components and utility bills (due to demand from data centres), a political movement that says "we'll restore jobs lost by AI and stop expansion of AI assets causing price increases" could go far.

 

[nw1]

I could see a form of AI populism emerging in politics if AI progresses a long way: the underlying causes of populism in recent years include outsourcing of primary and secondary industry jobs abroad, and more recently also cost of living matters. If AI takes lots of jobs, and/or causes a huge spike in costs for tech components and utility bills (due to demand from data centres), a political movement that says "we'll restore jobs lost by AI and stop expansion of AI assets causing price increases" could go far.

I can see that occurring, yes. The good thing perhaps is that undoubtedly such a movement would be left-wing, in contrast to the current, almost universally right-wing populist movements which seem to be very much supportive of unfettered and unregulated AI.

 

[jon0844]

I can see that occurring, yes. The good thing perhaps is that undoubtedly such a movement would be left-wing, in contrast to the current, almost universally right-wing populist movements which seem to be very much supportive of unfettered and unregulated AI.

One benefit of offering AI services free to people is that it often requires the sharing of some, most or even all of your data. Big data is valuable and when you give access to your emails, photos, videos and even potentially work reports, that book you're working on and other 'content' you are helping these big tech firms who can get valuable insights and, quite likely, confidential information you shouldn't have shared because you didn't fully realise what permissions you gave.

Getting rid of jobs and being able to use AI to generate things at low cost are obviously other benefits and may each receive some level of push back but I do think AI is mostly of benefits to those investing in it and not us who are feeding the language models and databases so we can make some funny videos and get it to help us write a report or do our homework.

 

[takno]

Getting rid of jobs and being able to use AI to generate things at low cost are obviously other benefits and may each receive some level of push back but I do think AI is mostly of benefits to those investing in it and not us who are feeding the language models and databases so we can make some funny videos and get it to help us write a report or do our homework.

Given the amount being spent and the likely returns, AI is of questionable benefit to those investing in it. I appreciate that might mean it's not of much use to anybody, but we are where we are.

 

[jon0844]

Given the amount being spent and the likely returns, AI is of questionable benefit to those investing in it. I appreciate that might mean it's not of much use to anybody, but we are where we are.

For sure.. I think there's a bubble waiting to burst (especially given the allegedly dodgy circular funding models) and I'd quite like to see the market taken down a notch - but at the same time, a lot of people have invested in AI possibly without realising how much AI isn't doing what it promises to do and likely won't for some time.

Getting data from users IS happening now though.

 

[Egg Centric]

If you could put that lot into English, we might be able to understand what you're saying. It's all gobbledegook as far as I'm concerned

Ban technology doing "this sort of thing"* at the point that we can identify "this sort of thing" with enough reliability it's reasonable to attach criminal sanctions to failing to do so.

Because the technology to identify it is so close to the technology to create it, banning it beforehand will just mean that actors outside of your legislative reach continue working on the tech while those within stop/emigrate. Since they have no other way to comply with the law. Meanwhile the technology can operate anywhere in the world so misuse continues much as before.

*this is a general argument applicable to all "sorts of things" - see also eg perennial usually religiously motivated US bans on types of biological research

 

[brad465]

The government have now spoken out against this Grok behaviour, but words are not enough, I think they should be removing all minister and government department official accounts from the platform, citing that they don't want their posts appearing next to Grok-edited nudes (which given the nature of the platform now isn't impossible):

Government demands Musk's X deals with 'appalling' Grok AI

Grok is being used to digitally remove women's clothing - something victims describe as "dehumanising".

www.bbc.co.uk

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has called on Elon Musk's X to urgently deal with its artificial intelligence chatbot Grok being used to create non-consensual sexualised deepfake images of women and girls.

The BBC has seen several examples on X of people asking the bot to digitally undress people to make them appear in bikinis without their consent, as well as putting them in sexual situations.

Kendall said the situation was "absolutely appalling", adding "we cannot and will not allow the proliferation of these degrading images."

"It is absolutely right that Ofcom is looking into this as a matter of urgency and it has my full backing to take any enforcement action it deems necessary."

 

[styles]

The government have now spoken out against this Grok behaviour, but words are not enough, I think they should be removing all minister and government department official accounts from the platform, citing that they don't want their posts appearing next to Grok-edited nudes (which given the nature of the platform now isn't impossible):

Government demands Musk's X deals with 'appalling' Grok AI

Grok is being used to digitally remove women's clothing - something victims describe as "dehumanising".

www.bbc.co.uk

I'm surprised governments still use Twitter/X to be honest.

It's not like they really need to. It's clearly just supporting a bad actor.

 

[JamesT]

I'm surprised governments still use Twitter/X to be honest.

It's not like they really need to. It's clearly just supporting a bad actor.

It's still one of the largest social media networks out there. I think the larger ones are just the various Meta sites and TikTok, which also have issues that have caused people to boycott.
If governments want to reach out to people, what should they use instead?

 

[styles]

It's still one of the largest social media networks out there. I think the larger ones are just the various Meta sites and TikTok, which also have issues that have caused people to boycott.
If governments want to reach out to people, what should they use instead?

I don't believe governments have to use certain social media platforms just because they're popular.

Most have a somewhat tarnished reputation to some extent, but a platform like Facebook is much more respectable than Twitter/X in 2026.

 

[takno]

It's still one of the largest social media networks out there. I think the larger ones are just the various Meta sites and TikTok, which also have issues that have caused people to boycott.
If governments want to reach out to people, what should they use instead?

Tbh I don't especially mind them doing outreach on as many channels as work. The issue I have is when they tightly integrate any social media platform as the best way into their information flow. All the information that's on social media should automatically also be on their website (ideally including responses to customer queries), and they should be handling queries to websites and by email as quickly as they do social media ones.

I strongly dislike the current situation where many train companies "do" social media, with lots of information disseminated over social media and a dedicated team responding quickly, but where the website only contains outsourced summary updates and emails are answered wrongly a week later by an outsourced team.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If governments want to reach out to people, what should they use instead?

Bluesky is picking up users quite quickly; while it's still not massive it is growing - and it's a Musk-free zone by policy.

There's also a decent and growing railway interests presence on there...

 

[DelW]

Tbh I don't especially mind them doing outreach on as many channels as work. The issue I have is when they tightly integrate any social media platform as the best way into their information flow. All the information that's on social media should automatically also be on their website (ideally including responses to customer queries), and they should be handling queries to websites and by email as quickly as they do social media ones.

I strongly dislike the current situation where many train companies "do" social media, with lots of information disseminated over social media and a dedicated team responding quickly, but where the website only contains outsourced summary updates and emails are answered wrongly a week later by an outsourced team.

I very much agree. Ever since Musk acquired Twitter and turned it into the repulsive X, I've refused to access the site at all. (Which will have no effect on X, but it's all I personally can do, and if multiple millions of people do the same, it does have an effect). I'm disappointed that TOCs, including government controlled ones, still prioritise using X for realtime information on disruption etc. in preference to the NR website or the TOC's own website. There's no point Government ministers complaining about X's policies, when their own organisations promote its use, and indeed make it almost impossible to avoid.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Tbh I don't especially mind them doing outreach on as many channels as work. The issue I have is when they tightly integrate any social media platform as the best way into their information flow. All the information that's on social media should automatically also be on their website (ideally including responses to customer queries), and they should be handling queries to websites and by email as quickly as they do social media ones.

I strongly dislike the current situation where many train companies "do" social media, with lots of information disseminated over social media and a dedicated team responding quickly, but where the website only contains outsourced summary updates and emails are answered wrongly a week later by an outsourced team.

I agree entirely with you and I'd hoped there would be more effort to better replicate the data on different platforms when Twitter restricted access to users that aren't logged in, the company or organisation's own website should be the priority for information since it's managed by them and easily accessible to everyone. I wonder how much Twitter relies on the traffic to these official accounts especially given users really need to have a logged in account to access them although I guess it's also partly to the benefit of the companies and organisations since they don't have to do much apart from just post the content.

 

[jon0844]

I very much agree. Ever since Musk acquired Twitter and turned it into the repulsive X, I've refused to access the site at all. (Which will have no effect on X, but it's all I personally can do, and if multiple millions of people do the same, it does have an effect). I'm disappointed that TOCs, including government controlled ones, still prioritise using X for realtime information on disruption etc. in preference to the NR website or the TOC's own website. There's no point Government ministers complaining about X's policies, when their own organisations promote its use, and indeed make it almost impossible to avoid.

As I said before, for years people used Twitter quite happily. It wasn't great before Elon either when it came to the political and culture-war stuff, but you could avoid it. To be honest, you still can even if you get alerts from people you don't follow because Elon wants to push this nonsense.

Until there's a viable alternative, I don't see what companies can do that invested millions into the management systems to effectively do their customer service via the platform - instead of using a standalone system. The real-time information was/is valuable and it was easy for people to find their required company on the platform. The back-end systems are pretty rock solid, even if X now charges more for access in many cases.

If Meta or Bluesky, or any other other new platforms trying to establish themselves as the replacement, had the same tools then it might help. I would imagine Bluesky to be the most likely contender as Meta will likely want a lot of money - although the integration with Threads, Facebook, WhatsApp and even Instagram (trying to become a messaging platform in its own right) does have an advantage. The problem is Meta isn't exactly squeaky clean.

What does the average company do? Take a punt that Threads is where everyone is? Or Mastadon? Or maybe they set up a Substack or Discord server. Maybe they just do the messaging through Telegraph or Signal.

Many companies are hedging their bets, and even dabbling on TikTok which is arguable the worst of all when you think of the harm being done through dodgy challenges and misbehaviour from those seeking clout and making a name of themselves (often by doing nothing more than committing crimes). For rail operators, do you want to be showing your clips of rail travel next to those showing how to bump the gates and reset Cubic gatelines, or access cabs to play with the controls?

In an ideal world there might be an independent site for customer service, that does nothing more than allow a company to post information and engage with customers. There's no social networking functions beyond that. It could be something operated as a non-profit, paid for by the companies that use it, and everyone who needs to contact a business would use that one single app.

But chances are if that were set up, someone would set up another..

What's the solution? I don't have a clue. But I do know that for the time being companies will continue to use X whether they like it or not.

 

[m0ffy]

The governors decided to take our school off Twitter last year for two main reasons:
1. Engagement has always been poorest on Twitter compared with other platforms.
2. The big one - we can’t really push online safety while pointing parents to an increasingly dodgy site, increasingly full of porn, scams, and extremism.

 

[Bantamzen]

As I said before, for years people used Twitter quite happily. It wasn't great before Elon either when it came to the political and culture-war stuff, but you could avoid it. To be honest, you still can even if you get alerts from people you don't follow because Elon wants to push this nonsense.

Until there's a viable alternative, I don't see what companies can do that invested millions into the management systems to effectively do their customer service via the platform - instead of using a standalone system. The real-time information was/is valuable and it was easy for people to find their required company on the platform. The back-end systems are pretty rock solid, even if X now charges more for access in many cases.

If Meta or Bluesky, or any other other new platforms trying to establish themselves as the replacement, had the same tools then it might help. I would imagine Bluesky to be the most likely contender as Meta will likely want a lot of money - although the integration with Threads, Facebook, WhatsApp and even Instagram (trying to become a messaging platform in its own right) does have an advantage. The problem is Meta isn't exactly squeaky clean.

What does the average company do? Take a punt that Threads is where everyone is? Or Mastadon? Or maybe they set up a Substack or Discord server. Maybe they just do the messaging through Telegraph or Signal.

Many companies are hedging their bets, and even dabbling on TikTok which is arguable the worst of all when you think of the harm being done through dodgy challenges and misbehaviour from those seeking clout and making a name of themselves (often by doing nothing more than committing crimes). For rail operators, do you want to be showing your clips of rail travel next to those showing how to bump the gates and reset Cubic gatelines, or access cabs to play with the controls?

In an ideal world there might be an independent site for customer service, that does nothing more than allow a company to post information and engage with customers. There's no social networking functions beyond that. It could be something operated as a non-profit, paid for by the companies that use it, and everyone who needs to contact a business would use that one single app.

But chances are if that were set up, someone would set up another..

What's the solution? I don't have a clue. But I do know that for the time being companies will continue to use X whether they like it or not.

The answer is for users to move away from X. It's not going to happen overnight, but if enough people walk away the companies using it will see engagement fall, perhaps enough for them to consider ending using it. Let's face it, Tesla has been hugely damaged as a result of people walking away because of the boy wonder, it could easily happen to X too with a bit of user will power.

I actually ditched X a couple of weeks ago, as frankly I'd had enough of where it's been going, even though my primary use of it was travel feeds which were useful. I also kicked Threads into touch, that place is even more toxic than X, and that's saying something. And let's be honest, you can probably guarantee that the majority of the toxicity on most social media is bot driven, meaning dumping them really isn't the big thing it once was.

 

[jon0844]

While I haven't deleted my account, I don't post on X anymore. I stay logged in because there are posts I do want to read and I have to be logged in to read a thread.

I had a large following and stopping using X (as well as others stopping using it too) had an impact on my ability to promote my work, but I didn't want to support Elon and his wayward far-right fascist ideology.

 

[Giugiaro]

If governments want to reach out to people, what should they use instead?

Well, I don't know... maybe workplaces, schools... the streets...?

 

[JohnMcL7]

The governors decided to take our school off Twitter last year for two main reasons:
1. Engagement has always been poorest on Twitter compared with other platforms.
2. The big one - we can’t really push online safety while pointing parents to an increasingly dodgy site, increasingly full of porn, scams, and extremism.

Both good points, there's frequent talk about how many users are on Twitter but I've frequently seen other comments that people and companies see much better engagement on other platforms. I'd have thought with your second point it would cause companies and organisations to leave Twitter but doesn't seem to have happened any numbers, the approach to dealing with the content is completely inadequate:

xAI silent after Grok sexualized images of kids; dril mocks Grok’s “apology”

xAI may be liable for Grok generating AI CSAM.

arstechnica.com

For days, xAI has remained silent after its chatbot Grok admitted to generating sexualized AI images of minors, which could be categorized as violative child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) in the US.

According to Grok’s “apology”—which was generated by a user’s request, not posted by xAI—the chatbot’s outputs may have been illegal:

“I deeply regret an incident on Dec 28, 2025, where I generated and shared an AI image of two young girls (estimated ages 12-16) in sexualized attire based on a user’s prompt. This violated ethical standards and potentially US laws on CSAM. It was a failure in safeguards, and I’m sorry for any harm caused. xAI is reviewing to prevent future issues.”

Ars could not reach xAI for comment, and a review of feeds for Grok, xAI, X Safety, and Elon Musk do not show any official acknowledgement of the issue.

Musk's previous comments in this regard of course are not helpful:

Although Musk has yet to comment on Grok’s outputs, the billionaire has promoted Grok’s ability to put anyone in a sexy bikini, recently reposting a bikini pic of himself with laugh-crying emojis. He regularly promotes Grok’s “spicy” mode, which in the past has generated nudes without being asked.

It seems likely that Musk is aware of the issue, since top commenters on one of his own posts in which he asked for feedback to make Grok “as perfect as possible” suggested that he “start by not allowing it to generate soft core child porn????” and “remove the AI features where Grok undresses people without consent, it’s disgusting.”

Something I'd been wondering recently is why there's been on sign of the Tesla Roadster which was announced almost a decade ago. I'd watched a video from a UK channel talking about their frustration with getting a refund on their deposit when they'd been asked to pay the full price on a car which still didn't even exist which they refused and struggled instead to get their refund back. They said they were basically wanted a model X with a sportier body and I thought it made sense to build the Roadster rather than the Cybertruck since it would be better suited to a higher price, low sales and could be sold worldwide. However I hadn't realised the number of crazy promises that had been made for the car starting off with insane acceleration and range comments building up to it being rocket powered and hinting it would fly until this video went over the claims Musk had made:

In this video we go over the Tesla Roadster, which is now 5 years late and has still not been delivered.

The UK channel had suggested that Tesla were using deposits for the car as cashflow hence taking full payments for a car which doesn't exist and this financial channel also thinks the same given the timing.

This channel also has a recent video on Musk's claims about orbital datacentres pointing out how no aspect of the idea makes any sense yet Musk still seems to retain credibility as does Tesla.

 

[Egg Centric]

I wish we could separate Musk being a nobhead from demanding perfection from experimental, game changing (if overhyped) technology.

My job has changed immensely in the last couple of years due to AI. And for the better and much more productively.

 

[brad465]

The government are giving full backing to Ofcom to use all powers in dealing with X over this Grok scandal, including allowing a ban in the UK:

Ofcom urged to use 'banning' powers over X AI deepfakes

It follows an ongoing backlash against the use of X's AI Grok to digitally remove clothing from images.

www.bbc.co.uk

The government has urged the regulator Ofcom to use all its powers – up to and including an effective ban – against X over concerns about unlawful AI images created on the site.
Ofcom's powers include the ability to obtain a court order to prevent third parties from helping the Elon Musk-owned platform from raising money or from being accessed in the UK.
This follows an ongoing backlash against the use of X's AI Grok to digitally remove clothing from images of people.
The possibility there could be sexualised images of children raised very specific concerns in government.
Addressing concerns over sexualised images of adults and children produced by Grok, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: "This is disgraceful. It's disgusting. And it's not to be tolerated… Ofcom has our full support to take action in relation to this."
"It's unlawful. We're not going to tolerate it. I've asked for all options to be on the table," he added in an interview with Greatest Hits Radio.
Government sources told BBC News: "We would expect Ofcom to use all powers at its disposal in regard to Grok & X."
Ofcom's powers under the Online Safety Act have only been used six times, but include a "very strong" ability to ask the High Court to effectively ban offending companies by preventing their access to technology and to funding through advertisers and other payments.
That process normally requires an investigation, but can be short-circuited where there are serious harms, risks to children, and histories of non-compliance.
A new Ofcom chair is also in the process of being recruited. They will be expected to take a much more robust approach to these matters amid newer concerns about internet safety and national security, arising from new technology and types of ownership.
The Online Safety Act is also at the centre of some concerns from the Trump administration about the impact on US tech firms.
On Monday, Ofcom said it had made "urgent contact" with X and xAI, which built Grok, and told the BBC it was investigating concerns.
It is currently illegal to share deepfakes of adults, external in the UK.
In an earlier statement, X said: "Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content."

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

If I was a detective/police officer, I'd be very tempted to get YouGov to disclose whoever the 1-2% in this poll are that support the generation of sexually explicit content with AI tools and arrest them:

AI tools should not be allowed to make ‘undressed’ images, say Britons | YouGov

YouGov survey finds Elon Musk continues to be very unpopular in the UK following new controversy over his firm’s Grok AI tool

yougov.co.uk

YouGov survey finds Elon Musk continues to be very unpopular in the UK following new controversy over his firm’s Grok AI tool​

Elon Musk’s company xAI is in hot water currently, following criticism that an image-editing feature of its AI tool Grok is being used to digitally ‘undress’ photos of women and, in some reported cases, apparent children, without consent.

While the Grok tool on X / Twitter has guardrails that prevent it from creating nude or sexually explicit images, users have been prompting the tool to create images depicting women – including female users of the platform – and children in states of undress, including wearing bikinis and lingerie.

Ofcom has made “urgent contact” with the company, which warned users not to make or post illegal content on the platform and will work with law enforcement where necessary, with Elon Musk saying that “anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content”.

A new YouGov survey shows that the British public overwhelmingly believe AI companies should not be allowed to generate such imagery. Fully 96% of Britons say that firms should not be allowed to generate ‘undressed’ images of children (only 1% say they should), with 87% saying the same regarding such images of adults (5% think this is ok).

 

[Egg Centric]

If I was a detective/police officer, I'd be very tempted to get YouGov to disclose whoever the 1-2% in this poll are that support the generation of sexually explicit content with AI tools and arrest them:

Ignoring that that would be ridiculous as it's not illegal (yet) to have an opinion, it's time to introduce you to Lizardman's constant (tl;dr: if you ask pretty much any question in a public opinion poll no matter how ridiculous the option there'll always be a tiny % who go for it, and it doesn't mean anyone necessarily actually does support it)

 

[nw1]

My job has changed immensely in the last couple of years due to AI. And for the better and much more productively.

But would you be happy if your company decides that AI means that one person can do the job of two, and make you redundant?

(I have no idea what you do for work, and do not want to know, but I do perceive this as a real risk of using AI in the workplace...)

 

[styles]

But would you be happy if your company decides that AI means that one person can do the job of two, and make you redundant?

(I have no idea what you do for work, and do not want to know, but I do perceive this as a real risk of using AI in the workplace...)

As an employee, probably not.

As a consumer, probably yes.

This argument plays out in the public space all the time. The most relevant example for this forum is driverless trains. Employees and their unions will fight hard against driverless trains or driver only operation; but the wider public wants more automation and cheaper services (yes I'm aware there's disagreement here about whether DOO/autonomous trains would reduce fares but I'm not advocating either side).

Consumers do however want good quality AI, not crappy chatbots which fail to answer a question properly.

 

[Egg Centric]

As an employee, probably not.

As a consumer, probably yes.

This argument plays out in the public space all the time. The most relevant example for this forum is driverless trains. Employees and their unions will fight hard against driverless trains or driver only operation; but the wider public wants more automation and cheaper services (yes I'm aware there's disagreement here about whether DOO/autonomous trains would reduce fares but I'm not advocating either side).

Consumers do however want good quality AI, not crappy chatbots which fail to answer a question properly.

Precisely. Adapt or die. No one is going to enjoy being made redundant, and it's certainly possible in my case that I'm innovating myself out of existence in the long term - but jobs will always be available.

 

[Giugiaro]

But would you be happy if your company decides that AI means that one person can do the job of two, and make you redundant?

As a designer, I do way more tasks now than a team of designers, technicians and engineers did in the 80s, while not being an expert on none of those fields.

The tools of the trade have also changed. I can't draw as well as the old school designers, but I 3D model and work on virtual environments in a way the older designers couldn't imagine being able to do back in the day.

Also, it does happen that companies and societies demand increasingly more out of our professionals. An old school mechanical engineer couldn't bring themselves to accept the amount of tasks a modern mechanical engineer is expected to know and do, including skills and knowledge that would've been offloaded to other professions back in the day.

And yes. It does feel ridiculous a lot of times. But if an engineer refuses to do accounting after hours because the company refuses to hire an accountant, then they'll fire or dismiss that engineer and find a younger engineer that accepts to do that job for less pay.