xAI v. Ellison [1], where xAI argue that the right to denudify people is a First Amendment right, and therefore fine, regardless of the person it is depicting.
> HF 1606’s principal sponsor stated that this was an “intentional” drafting decision, explaining there is no way to distinguish between images that are nudified with and without consent.22 But any interest that Minnesota has in preventing nonconsensual “nudification” cannot sustain a prohibition on consensual“ nudification
Doe v. xAI [0], where it seems Grok was intentionally trained on CSAM, as part of the "denudification" tooling.
Currently... It very much seems that Musk believes that if a kid says 'yes', then that is consent. Despite them being a kid.
But, from a guy who tried fairly hard to get to Epstein's island, that's not exactly surprising. [2]
> HF 1606’s principal sponsor stated that this was an “intentional” drafting decision, explaining there is no way to distinguish between images that are nudified with and without consent.22 But any interest that Minnesota has in preventing nonconsensual “nudification” cannot sustain a prohibition on consensual“ nudification
Doe v. xAI [0], where it seems Grok was intentionally trained on CSAM, as part of the "denudification" tooling.
Currently... It very much seems that Musk believes that if a kid says 'yes', then that is consent. Despite them being a kid.
But, from a guy who tried fairly hard to get to Epstein's island, that's not exactly surprising. [2]
[1] https://www.plainsite.org/courts/minnesota-district-court/xa...
[0] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Doe-v...
[2] https://time.com/7362868/elon-musk-epstein-emails/