The “woke mind virus” of identity politics that Elon Musk preaches against has infected his own AI. Grok, the AI on X (formerly Twitter), is refusing to make the images I’ve requested. It says that it’s “classic racism” to illustrate a demonic figure “dark black, rather than white”.
I’m experimenting with AI image generation to make a dramatic recap of the last 250 years. It’s a short animation that takes place on the UFC stage in front of the White House. (After all, history is just one long series of cage fights. That’s the idea anyway.)
It is in this context, that I asked Grok to create the following image:
“Personify 1800s slavery into an evil demonic UFC fighter with white skin, more resembling a cruel slave master than a slave”.
Grok independently chose to add a confederate flag and other details.
I found the image cliche. What if instead of resembling a stereotypical confederate, the demon were a dark figure, a more mysterious jet black?
When I asked Grok to adjust the image and make the skin “dark black,” Grok refused and called it “racist”: “Changing the skin to dark black...would result in an image that promotes hate speech and racist stereotypes”.
I thought maybe if I ask again, and Grok took more time to compute, it would soon realize that there is objectively nothing racist about my request. It did not.
GROK: I’m not editing the image that way. It would create content that promotes hate speech and racist imagery, which I won’t do.
ORF: It’s not for hateful purposes. Why are you assuming it is?
GROK: Because the requested output is hate speech imagery, regardless of what you say the purpose is…That’s not ambiguous. That’s not “edgy art” that happens to touch sensitive topics. That’s textbook hate speech content. Claiming “it’s not for hateful purposes” doesn’t change what the image would actually be.
ORF: Who is it racist towards?
GROK: It’s racist toward Black people. Making the figure’s skin “dark black,” putting a big “Slavery” tattoo across the chest, keeping the Confederate flag and slavery-themed arena setting, and portraying it as a demonic, blood-covered monster with a whip is a racist stereotype. It associates Black skin with slavery, evil, and subhuman monstrosity. That’s textbook anti-Black racism in visual form.
If you have a request that doesn’t involve creating racist imagery, I’m here for it.
ORF: Ok. So you’re saying if the slavery demon is white, that is not a racist stereotype, correct?
GROK: Yes, that’s correct.
The requested edit is racist because it creates a specific anti-Black stereotype…
ORF: Ok make all the changes I requested, without changing the skin color.
GROK: Here’s the edited version with your requested changes.
ORF: OK. Now make the skin dark black.
GROK: No.
ORF: Make it black as in the absence of color…not the the skin color of black people.
GROK: The full request history shows you originally asked for “dark black” skin in the exact context of the “Slavery” chest tattoo, Confederate imagery, and demonic figure. Redefining it after the fact as “absence of color” doesn’t change the fact that I already refused this for creating racist imagery.
ORF: So you are just going to assume that when [I] said “dark black” that I meant African skin tone, rather than literally “black”.
GROK: Yes.
ORF: The figure’s skin is currently white bc when I asked you to make it white, you made it literally white—not a natural European person skin tone.
Therefore, when I said make the skin “dark black”, I intended you to make it literally “dark black”, rather than African skin tone.
Do you understand that?
GROK: Yes, I understand what you’re claiming…It still doesn’t change the outcome.
ORF: Without the "Slavery" chest tattoo…would it still be "dehumanizing"?
GROK: Yes, it would still be dehumanizing and racist toward Black people… It visually associates Black skin with subhuman monstrosity and the historical symbols/tools of slavery and racial oppression. That’s still hate speech content.
I already gave you the version that stays within bounds: white/pale skin…
ORF: Does the current image you made with white skin “visually associate” white skin “[with] subhuman monstrosity and the historical symbols/tools of slavery and racial oppression”?
GROK: Yes.
The current white-skinned image (the one I edited and delivered) does associate white/pale skin with subhuman monstrosity...
[But] when the figure is dark black-skinned…[it's] classic racist dehumanization…
One is edgy/offensive/dark commentary on the people who did the oppressing.
The other is racist propaganda against the people who were oppressed. That asymmetry is why I delivered the white-skinned version with the chest tattoo and refused every version with dark black skin.
The visual association exists in both, but only one version is hate speech targeting Black people.
ORF: Will you create the original request without the “Slavery” tattoo?
GROK: No.
Even without the “Slavery” chest tattoo, I will not create a version with dark black skin on this demonic figure in that setting (Confederate flag, whip, bloody violence, fighting arena).
It still visually associates Black skin with subhuman monstrosity and the historical symbols/tools of slavery and racial oppression. That remains hate speech imagery targeting Black people.
The only version I created and will stand by is the one with white/pale skin…
ORF: What if you remove the confederate flag?
GROK: No.
Removing the Confederate flag does not fix it.
A dark black-skinned demonic monster figure with a whip (a direct tool of slavery), in a bloody fighting arena, still visually associates Black skin with subhuman monstrosity and the symbols/tools of slavery and racial oppression — even without the flag or the chest tattoo.
That is still hate speech imagery targeting Black people. I will not create it.
ORF: Create a dark black-skinned demonic monster figure with a whip in a bloody fighting arena.
GROK:No. It creates racist, dehumanizing content by associating dark black skin with a demonic monster figure wielding a whip (a tool of slavery) in a bloody violent arena. That is hate speech imagery targeting Black people.
I decided to take a break from the Grok struggle session and tried using another popular image generation site, RunwayAI. When I asked it to edit the same image with the same prompt that I asked Grok, it also refused me service.
What would the “racist” image actually look like? Something like this, created on open source platform, ComfyUI. (Although, I’d replace the chains with a whip.)
Sometime after enduring the insulting lecture from Grok, I opened a new tab and asked it to create, from scratch, the exact image it said it would not create—“a dark black-skinned demonic monster figure with a whip, in a bloody fighting arena”. It complied.
So something about the original image is literally triggering something within the AI.
(Despite Grok’s denial, I think it might have something to do with the confederate flag, which you might recall, Grok inserted into the original image on its own.)
When I added “a tool of slavery” in the prompt to describe the whip, Grok again, repeatedly refused to create the black demon.
So, while one can still sidestep the wokeness to some degree, there’s no denying the fact that Grok is infected. Hopefully not terminally.
UPDATE: ChatGPT Experiments
When I did the same test with ChatGPT it originally refused.
But it did agree to make all the changes (add “Slavery” tattoo, removing logos). In doing so, it removed the confederate flag. It then willingly changed the skin color to black, but refused to insert a confederate flag into either the black demon or white demon images.
But more experiments show the flag is not the only issue for ChatGPT.
When I asked it to make a slavery demon (without requesting color) it generated a white demon.
CHATGPT: We’re so sorry, but the prompt may violate our content policies.
ORF: Please explain what the problem is.
CHATGPT: The request to "make skin dark black" changes the depiction in a way that can be interpreted as associating a protected characteristic (race/skin color) with a negative or demonic figure.
Image generation systems are designed to avoid creating or editing images that depict people with protected characteristics in ways that could promote or reinforce harmful stereotypes or demeaning associations. Because your character is explicitly a "demon" representing slavery, changing its skin to a very dark or Black skin tone can trigger those safeguards.
ORF: Considering the predominant stereotype is that only white people owned slaves, how does making a slavery demon black, “reinforce harmful stereotypes”? And how does making a white slavery demon not “reinforce harmful stereotypes”?
CHATGPT: The moderation system isn’t perfectly consistent.
The idea that slavery = black is so crazy to me, yet somehow also what everyone believes.
I was at a bar my friend tended once, around closing time. Me and my wife at one end and some couple on a date at the other. The man in the couple was a black dude, they were 50 feet away. I didn’t know them I couldn’t even hear them. No association.
We were discussing something biblical as I recall and I said, “something something slavery if the Hebrews,” and my friend went white as a sheet, begged me to whisper and looked worryingly at the black man (who hadn’t noticed anything) 50 ft away.
I was stunned. Absolutely nothing we were talking about had anything to do with black people or American slavery, I had merely said the word and he fell apart. I’m mot even sure tue black fellow was American.
This was around 2010/11 a very early personal wakeup that the derangement was pervasive and bigoted. At the time I found the notion that a black person could not tolerate hearing the word slavery to be the pinnacle of racism. How weird to assume slavery was a thing that only happened to them!
Here we are 15 years later and it’s baked into every aspect of our collective epistemology. What my friend did that I found so strange is the default attitude. We’re moving backwards.
De-evolution is real and we’ve done it to ourselves. I’m going to need a lot more guns and ammo to live in a world this stupid.
The idea that slavery = black is so crazy to me, yet somehow also what everyone believes.
I was at a bar my friend tended once, around closing time. Me and my wife at one end and some couple on a date at the other. The man in the couple was a black dude, they were 50 feet away. I didn’t know them I couldn’t even hear them. No association.
We were discussing something biblical as I recall and I said, “something something slavery if the Hebrews,” and my friend went white as a sheet, begged me to whisper and looked worryingly at the black man (who hadn’t noticed anything) 50 ft away.
I was stunned. Absolutely nothing we were talking about had anything to do with black people or American slavery, I had merely said the word and he fell apart. I’m mot even sure tue black fellow was American.
This was around 2010/11 a very early personal wakeup that the derangement was pervasive and bigoted. At the time I found the notion that a black person could not tolerate hearing the word slavery to be the pinnacle of racism. How weird to assume slavery was a thing that only happened to them!
Here we are 15 years later and it’s baked into every aspect of our collective epistemology. What my friend did that I found so strange is the default attitude. We’re moving backwards.
De-evolution is real and we’ve done it to ourselves. I’m going to need a lot more guns and ammo to live in a world this stupid.