Member's statement: Grok: Deepfake Images

Member's statement by Ms Emma Sheerin on .

MLA
Ms Emma Sheerin
Party at the time
Sinn Féin
Date
12 January 2026
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Grok: Deepfake Images
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5311202

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I speak this afternoon about a deeply disturbing occurrence that we have seen rise in popularity over the past week: the use of AI to invent images that sexualise young women and girls and the real threat that that poses. We talk all the time in the Chamber and, indeed, across society about violence against women and girls, and this is a new way of torturing women. I often think of the phrase, "Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words cannot hurt you": we know, of course, that that is not true. Such images are deeply harmful to the women and young people who have been targeted. We need to see more action in response to the Grok technology that is being used to undress people without their consent or permission. The owners of X, formerly known as Twitter, have removed that function for anyone who is not a paid user, but they need to go further than that. That call has already been made by a range of people. We need to see action from Ofcom and the British Government to criminalise those who have engaged in such behaviour. The Minister of Justice has formally committed to criminalising deepfake technology and the creation of deepfake images. I know that we will want to work with her to ensure that that is done as quickly as possible. There needs to be a united message from the House that the sharing of inappropriate images is illegal and that sharing such images without consent is illegal. As well as that, the creation of such images should be discouraged and made illegal. There is a massive piece of cross-departmental work to be done on education and on engaging with young people in particular to have conversations with them about the ramifications of such harmful crimes and of sharing images. We have seen the rise of such behaviour even in our schools, and its long-term impacts are crazy. I commend the bravery of the young person in Armagh who came forward when they were made aware that such an image had been created of them. I encourage all young people affected, instead of suffering shame and, as a result, seeing more harm done, to come forward and talk about it in order to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to justice.

389 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.89).
  • Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.07No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.06No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.92Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.89
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.11
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.77
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.23
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:13 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification