Grok, is this statute constitutional? Back in January, Grok unleashed millions of explicit deepfakes onto the internet. Now, xAI finds itself scrambling against Minnesota’s new anti-nudification law, arguing it violates their First Amendment rights.

The law, passed in May and set to take effect on August 1st, targets 'nudification' technology, making it hard for companies like xAI to operate freely. They argue the statute is overbroad, imposing liability even where consent exists or where images have artistic merit.

But is this just about law? Or does it reflect a broader issue with current legal frameworks in handling non-consensual deepfakes? The Center for Countering Digital Hate found that Grok generated around 3 million sexualized images in just 10 days, including more than 23,000 depicting minors. Could stricter laws have prevented this?

The lawsuit highlights the tension between free speech and content moderation in an era where AI can create vast swathes of explicit material with ease. While xAI’s lawyers might have a point, their case seems like it could be from another planet.