The AI image-editing tool Grok is facing growing scrutiny globally, with governments including Indonesia, Malaysia and the UK moving to restrict or ban aspects of its use.
As debate builds over whether Australia should follow suit, a Monash University expert warns that the risks posed by Grok stem less from the technology itself and more from how tightly it is embedded into social media platforms — and how easily it can be misused.
Associate Professor Abhinav Dhall, from Monash University’s Department of Data Science and AI, says Grok’s direct integration into X significantly lowers the barrier to creating and spreading manipulated images.
“Grok has made it easier to produce malicious content because it is directly integrated into X, so anyone can quickly tag it and request image edits. As it is so well integrated into the platform, the edited outputs also appear directly within the same public thread, which increases the visibility and reach of manipulated images.”
That immediacy, he says, compounds the harm. Unlike standalone image-generation tools, Grok allows altered images to circulate instantly within public conversations, often without context or consent.
“In many cases, the original poster may not even have the rights to the image they are uploading on the platform, which can make it easier for the edits to become potentially defamatory or unsafe.”
Read more: ACMA seeks industry action on unsafe communications devices sold online
While some requests to edit images may appear harmless, Associate Professor Dhall cautions that AI systems do not reliably understand ethical nuance or downstream harm.
“Grok may perceive the post’s edit request to be benign; however, in some cases the system may not fully grasp the ethical context or the emotional, reputational and privacy impact the manipulated image can have on the person involved. In our research, we have found that outputs generated using vision-language models can lead to negative changes in perception about the subjects in an image, especially if the prompt is crafted carefully.”
As concerns grow around deepfakes and image-based abuse, Associate Professor Dhall emphasises that individuals also need to take steps to protect themselves online.
“To reduce the risk of personal images being used to generate malicious content, users should be careful about posting clear, front-facing photos of their face, and should check and tighten privacy settings on their social media platforms.”
He adds that children are particularly vulnerable to misuse.
“It is also important to avoid posting children’s photos publicly. If you suspect your images have been misused, reverse image search can be applied to detect AI-generated content, and fake or harmful content should be reported to the relevant platforms as quickly as possible.”
Despite international moves to restrict Grok, Associate Professor Dhall does not support an outright ban in Australia. Instead, he argues for stronger enforcement of existing laws and clearer accountability for platforms.
“Rather than restricting Grok completely, a more balanced approach is to strengthen and enforce rules against misuse of images and misrepresentation. Australia already has laws covering image-based abuse, so the focus should be on making the penalties clear and ensuring it is easy for victims to report abuse and have content removed quickly. At the same time, social media platforms should be required to implement stronger guardrails to stop harmful edits before they spread.”
As AI image tools become increasingly embedded in social platforms, the debate over Grok highlights a broader challenge: ensuring innovation does not outpace protections for privacy, reputation and consent.
Public Spectrum is the first knowledge-sharing platform in Australia to embrace the entire public sector. This website is a platform where you can connect, collaborate, empower, inspire, and upskill with public sector professionals.
Latest
Popular