No articles I can find yet but online chatter shows people talking about how tonight Grok is now heavily censored. Won't take uploaded images and put the woman in a bikini, etc. Won't make videos of women undressing into bikinis/underwear etc.
I tested it personally by uploading a pic of a woman and asking it draw her in a bikini and it was moderated. Uploaded to Imagine a woman already in a bikini and it refuses to make a video of literally anything (not even "woman reads a book", how sexist!)- even with no prompt it refuses. Asked it to draw a woman in a bikini and 1 attempt was moderated but another was generated.
All because Elon stuck his dick in crazy.
Paparazzi upskirt photos of celebs existed for decades too. In currentyear, they will get you visited by the starmtroopers, even for reposting an old one as with Laurence Fox in the UK.
'Revenge porn' nonsense was the thin end of the feminist wedge used to hack the overton window out of the wall. They've successfully conflated image manipulation of women with the worst crimes on the planet now; in Ireland this was reported on the news as 'grok is making child porn images (so please turn up in Dublin for a protest outside the X offices later today)'. I could tell with the response to DignifAI that this was a line of internet freedom our supposed free speech champions won't be ready to cross for a loooong time, long beyond the oft-impotent pressure valve of allowing a bit of ranting about negros and jews.
Even nude scenes in movies or shows are through body doubles if the face is not in the shot. Even that will eventually be replaced with AI in post
TBF you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy up your skirt. I don't have a problem with those being illegal but I think the Fox one was a pic where she was getting out of a car or something and accidentally flashed the world- I don't consider those "upskirt". When I think of upskirt I think of someone intentionally trying to get a camera under there like that guy who put a little camera in his shoe and would then put his foot under women's skirts- that's a violation of privacy as oppose to a woman dressing like a ho and not taking care when getting out of a car. The latter is kind of on them, like when celeb women don't wear a bra and you can see their tits when the camera flash goes thru the thin fabric of their dress.
Getting underneath somebody's crotch requires invading their personal space. They have deliberately conflated this kind of harassment with line of sight photography taken at a distance, of celebrities dressed like prostitutes who don't have the sense to keep their legs together when getting out of a limo (often deliberately, back in the day when they knew it would generate attention). The latter kind of photo used to be advertised on the front of tabloid newspapers to a readership of millions of people, yet now it's treated as a sex crime which will put you on an offenders' register, to an opposition which numbers zero people. That's how far the window has shifted in favour of insane feminism.
The core of the whole idea is the simp notion that women don't have to be held responsible for exposing themselves and that men should be criminalised for unwanted attention. You can draw a clear through line from that to revenge porn and the 'staring laws' on UK trains. Why shouldn't it be illegal to look at women in public when they don't want it, if it's already illegal to photograph them at a distance in public or re-publish nude pics which were legally obtained? None of this is done to 'protect women' - if it was, they'd receive protection from brown rapists rather than embarrassing AI shoops. It's done to create another lever to control insufficiently servile men and the internet.