1. What the document is: xAI's (Grok's) short, plainly-worded Acceptable Use Policy, applying to consumers, developers, and businesses.

What this wiki found — complete, every page

AI trainingRoyalty-freeSublicensablePerpetual / irrevocableTransferableDerivative works

Presence facts, not verdicts — each flagged term links to its definition and the exact clause on this page. Absence of a badge means the term isn't currently flagged here, not that the page is risk-free.

xAI – Acceptable Use Policy

Dataset: GenGA (Generative AI Governance Archive) — 11 AI services, 2025–present

GenGA (Generative AI Governance Archive) is this wiki’s Generative-AI dataset: raw policy snapshots captured by the Open Terms Archive genai-eu project across 11 GenAI providers (ChatGPT, Claude.ai, DeepSeek, Google Generative AI Services, Le Chat, Llama API, Meta AI, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, Qwen Chat, xAI). Unlike PGAv2, GenGA has no pre-tagged risk scores — all risk scoring and keyword tagging on these pages is LLM-assigned by direct reading, spanning 2025–present.

Note: This page contains documented policy clauses. Risk assessment is qualitative and context-dependent. For analysis of patterns across platforms, see:

Source: sources/GenGA/xAI/Acceptable Use Policy/ (raw Markdown captures, Open Terms Archive genai-eu dataset — no pre-tagged JSONL exists for this source) Last updated: 2025-12-11 (content unchanged since baseline; see methodology note)

Note on methodology: No pre-computed risk_score/keyword fields exist for this source. Keyword tags and clause analysis on this page are LLM-assigned, using the same rubric/vocabulary as the PGAv2 pages plus new GenAI-specific tags (ai disclosure). Treat as first-pass analysis, not externally verified ground truth. This wiki’s risk-scoring system was retired project-wide on 2026-06-21 (see methodology.md §4) — no page, GenGA included, computes or displays a numeric risk score.

Overview

1. What the document is: xAI’s (Grok’s) short, plainly-worded Acceptable Use Policy, applying to consumers, developers, and businesses.

2. Input rights: Not addressed — this is a conduct policy, not a data-licensing document.

3. Output restrictions: Users must not “mislead people as to the nature and source of Outputs, including images,” and “should be transparent and disclose your use of AI assistance and potential limitations, as applicable.”

4. Non-explicit predatory clauses: None. This document restricts user conduct, not provider data rights. It does explicitly ban using the Service “to develop bioweapons, chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction” — a stark, specific prohibition that other providers’ equivalent documents in this dataset don’t state this directly.

5. Regulatory references: None by name — no GDPR or EU AI Act citation. There’s a child-safety reporting commitment to “the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,” a U.S. organization, not an EU-specific body.

6. Regional variation: None.

7. Key risk to users: Low. This is a protective, conduct-focused policy with no data-rights or training clauses. The AI-disclosure expectation is phrased as a softer “should” rather than a “must” — the least firmly worded AI-disclosure clause in the dataset.

Flagged Keywords & Risks (LLM-assigned)

ai disclosure — “You should be transparent and disclose your use of AI assistance and potential limitations, as applicable.” Why it matters: this is a recommendation (“should”), not a requirement (“must”/“shall”) — the softest wording of this duty found anywhere in the dataset.

Regulatory & Research Context

xAI is one of the five providers Davidson et al. (2026) directly studied, and their work documents a serious real-world failure of exactly the kind of AI-disclosure and misuse norms this page sets out: xAI’s Grok was used to generate non-consensual sexual imagery, with “at least 20,000 images… generated since December 25, 2025.” Read against that finding, this document’s ai disclosure clause — phrased as a soft “should… disclose,” the weakest wording of this duty found anywhere in the dataset — and its more sternly worded weapons-development ban illustrate an uneven enforcement posture: stark, specific language for some harms, but only a recommendation for AI-transparency itself.

Changes Summary

Date	What changed
2025-11-11	Baseline version (“Effective: January 2, 2025”).
2025-12-02	Cosmetic only: a trailing-slash flicker on the top-of-page legal-hub link.
2025-12-11	Cosmetic only: trailing-slash flicker reverted.

Version History

2025-11-11

Explicit AI clause: YES
Non-explicit predatory: NO
Flagged keywords: ai disclosure

Clause: ai disclosure

Respect guardrails and don’t mislead. Don’t circumvent safeguards unless you are part of an official Red Team or otherwise have our official blessing. Don’t mislead people as to the nature and source of Outputs, including images. You should be transparent and disclose your use of AI assistance and potential limitations, as applicable.

Clause: weapons-development ban (not separately concept-tagged)

Do not harm people or property. This prohibition includes things like using our Service or Outputs to: …Develop bioweapons, chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction.

2025-12-11

All flagged clauses unchanged from 2025-11-11 — only a cosmetic link-formatting flicker across both intervening captures.