The Verge56%

xAI sues a man for using Grok to generate CSAM ‘deepfakes’ 19%

By Emma Roth43%

7/15/2026, 9:33:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 40.6% saturation with 114 hits. Analysis detected 994 faulty-reasoning hits from 281 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.7% and a BS Rank of 19% (17,313 of 21,203 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.70% of the article peer group.

The Elon Musk-owned xAI is suing a South Carolina man who allegedly used the company’s Grok AI chatbot to generate child sexual abuse material (CSAM). 
In a lawsuit reported earlier by Reuters, xAI claims Terry Wayne Harwood “knowingly and intentionally used Grok to circumvent safeguards, alter nonconsensual images, and generate and distribute CSAM,” breaching the company’s policies. 
Harwood was arrested in February for allegedly possessing and distributing CSAM and is facing eight felony charges. 
The lawsuit claims “at least some” of the images related to Harwood’s criminal charges “were generated or altered” with Grok, and that Harwood bypassed Grok’s safeguards and “abused the tool to convert non-sexual photographs into sexually explicit images” without the subjects’ consent. 
After rolling out a “spicy” mode for Grok last year, xAI added the ability to edit images with the chatbot, leading to a flood of sexualized AI deepfakes, including ones with minors. 
A group of teens sued xAI in March over claims Grok generated sexualized images of themselves as minors. 
Musk responded by saying, “Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content,” though this appears to be the first time xAI has sued anyone over AI deepfakes created with Grok. 
xAI claims Harwood’s alleged actions exposed the company to “significant legal risk and reputational damage.” 
It has asked the court to order Harwood to pay xAI for any damages, as well as “reasonable expenses incurred defending itself in any legal action filed by a victim of Defendant’s conduct.” xAI also wants the judge to block Harwood from creating an xAI account or using Grok. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 40.6%Emma Roth: 4.7%The Verge: 3.6%Confirmation Bias40.6%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 2.2%The Verge: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.3%Emma Roth: 4.0%The Verge: 3.8%Availability Heuristic20.3%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.5%The Verge: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Emma Roth: 11.4%The Verge: 6.1%Framing Effect3.9%This article: 17.4%Emma Roth: 1.4%The Verge: 0.9%Loss Aversion17.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.4%The Verge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.4%The Verge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 7.3%The Verge: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Emma Roth: 0.9%The Verge: 2.4%Pessimism Bias14.2%This article: 21.4%Emma Roth: 8.0%The Verge: 9.4%Negativity Bias21.4%This article: 5.3%Emma Roth: 3.8%The Verge: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.0%The Verge: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 11.4%Emma Roth: 0.4%The Verge: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.6%The Verge: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 3.0%The Verge: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Emma Roth: 2.6%The Verge: 1.8%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 1.2%The Verge: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.6%The Verge: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 8.4%The Verge: 4.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.6%The Verge: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 11.4%Emma Roth: 0.4%The Verge: 1.2%Slippery Slope11.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.4%Emma Roth: 3.4%The Verge: 6.7%Hasty Generalization11.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.9%The Verge: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.2%Emma Roth: 1.4%The Verge: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion14.2%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.5%The Verge: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.4%Emma Roth: 4.5%The Verge: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 23.5%Emma Roth: 3.3%The Verge: 0.8%Burden of Proof23.5%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.4%Emma Roth: 2.0%The Verge: 3.6%Anecdotal6.4%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.9%Emma Roth: 4.3%The Verge: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.9%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 14.2%Emma Roth: 0.8%The Verge: 0.2%Special Pleading14.2%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 40.6%Emma Roth: 5.6%The Verge: 2.5%Unattributed Quote40.6%This article: 25.6%Emma Roth: 2.2%The Verge: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection25.6%This article: 30.2%Emma Roth: 9.3%The Verge: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice30.2%This article: 8.9%Emma Roth: 0.3%The Verge: 1.1%Indoctrination8.9%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 1.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emma Roth: 4.4%The Verge: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

281 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers63%attributed speech103writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coveragexAI • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coveragexAI • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageElon Musk • 40 words • 100.0% coveragexAI • 15 words • 0.0% coveragexAI • 49 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elon Musk

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words22% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elon Musk: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elon Musk: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.7 ptsWriter: 41.7%Elon Musk: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-24.3 ptsWriter: 24.3%Elon Musk: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.