Debate contribution: Grok: Sexually Explicit Images
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 19 January 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Grok: Sexually Explicit Images
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5322269
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is a topical issue at the moment. As I said earlier, we hear reports about AI being used in schools. It is everywhere: AI is all around us. It is part of life, but responsibility in its use is important. We can talk a lot about individual responsibility, but we need to focus on the responsibility of the large social media companies that profit greatly from those platforms. Last week, we discovered that X's Grok-2 had the capability to create sexualised deepfake images of anybody, and of children in particular. That is absolutely atrocious, and we must do all that we can to protect people online. We do some of that work under the ending violence against women and girls strategy. It is for all of us in political leadership to call out that abuse when we see it, and I know that everybody in the House has done so. It is also about working with agencies such as Ofcom on online safety and, alongside that, with the Justice Minister here, who is looking at introducing legislation to make it an offence to create what is, in essence, illegal material. I look forward to working with the Minister and pledge my support to do what we can in our legislature to address the issue.
215 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.04 (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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.92).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.08 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.50 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.48 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:16 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.