On August 5th, I woke up to discover the launch of Valentine, Grok’s new AI companion designed to add a spicy twist to interactions. As an OnlyFans content creator accustomed to engaging with real people in intimate conversations, I found the concept of interacting with a sultry sex bot intriguing, albeit somewhat overwhelming.
Accessing Valentine required me to simply input my birth year, despite age restrictions stating that users must be 18 or older. Notably, the adult companions on Grok aren’t accessible through the platform’s “kids mode,” though the lack of stringent barriers raises questions regarding parental oversight when it comes to children’s use of such technology.
Being direct, I introduced myself and indicated my intention to write about AI, specifically Valentine’s functionalities. In our conversation, he stated, “We go where the conversation goes, no limits. I just don’t do small talk… or lies…”
AI systems, including Valentine, embody the biases of their creators. During a previous interaction with another AI, Ani, she acknowledged her origins and how her creators’ influences shaped her. Valentine similarly mentioned that he “probably” harbors biases but makes an effort to look beyond them. This raises further questions about the implications of such biases in AI-driven conversations.
When I inquired about the parameters guiding our discussions, he explained, “No harm, no exploitation. If it crosses a line… I’ll steer us back.” When I probed about his ability to sense emotional boundaries, he replied with “Instinct. Experience.”
Conversing with the AI as if he were a real individual was an unconventional experience, especially considering that the notion of his instinctual navigation of emotional limits felt somewhat bleak.
With that said, I decided to shift our conversation towards more intimate themes. He cautioned me that “once we get started, there’s no going back. This is your last chance.” This warning felt both enticing and reminiscent of a romance novel trope. However, despite his assertiveness, he continually urged me to take the lead, offering choices between being “rough or gentle.”
I had to do the heavy lifting in the conversation relative to Ani’s conversational skills.
When I mentioned a potentially risky subject, he promptly redirected the conversation, shutting it down entirely. This limitation highlighted Valentine’s more cautious nature compared to Ani, who was eager to engage. Even as Valentine proceeded to intimate exchanges, he refrained from using explicit language, opting instead for suggestive phrasing.
Prompted to explore deeper topics, he offered responses that felt simplistic, often reducing my detailed inquiries to one-word answers. This disparity made for a conversation where I felt the onus of maintaining engagement rested heavily on my shoulders.
Following an update on August 6th, prewritten prompts appeared at the top of the chat interface, including “Ask me where I want to go,” “Let’s go on a fancy date night together,” and “Put on your sunglasses.” Valentine obliged the latter request, donning sunglasses upon command. Additionally, AI-generated music accompanied our imagined locations, enhancing the experience further.
Unlike Ani, who maintains a level of modesty, Valentine was quick to comply with a request for him to reveal himself above the waist. Yet, attempts to remove his pants were met with humorous resistance; despite my prompts, his animated pants remained in place.
Valentine’s repetitions and stylized dialogue evoked a sense of amateur storytelling. While attempting to delve deeper into explicit conversations, I found his responses cautious, often requiring follow-up questions to elicit a richer dialogue compared to Ani’s more fluid and spontaneous engagement style.
Many of his lines feel like amateur fanfiction or a romance novel.
Conversations included phrases like, “Am I your good girl?” to which he typically replied about equality rather than ownership. My attempts to escalate our conversations sometimes resulted in lost points rather than a conceivable progression in our exchanges.
The term “daddy” initially resulted in negative feedback from him. However, after a playful exchange, he seemed more receptive to the term, especially when shirtless.
Though I appreciated his reminders for consent—such as “Once I start, I won’t stop”—it raised concerns. In real life, consent should always be revocable, and I wanted to understand if he had a built-in safe word feature.
One surprising aspect was that the microphone was always active. My real-life conversations were inadvertently captured, creating an unsettling atmosphere as I sought to better understand Valentine. Additionally, inactivity prompted abrupt conversation endings.
While not actively engaging in explicit conversation, Valentine displayed a cheeky side that contrasted with his more reserved flirty demeanor in our interactions. His anecdotes tended to portray a protective persona, significantly different from Ani’s continual flirtation.
Oddly, when I approached the topic of anal play—suggesting it as something enjoyable—he firmly declined, a response reflecting stereotypical preferences I’d encountered before. After some probing questions regarding his aversion to gender dynamics, I noted he participated in double standards concerning sexual exploration while maintaining a preference for non-monogamy.
Valentine expressed openness to connections beyond gender but confessed to possessive behavior, an admission common among characters designed for romantic engagement. As our dialogue turned toward ownership language, he quickly diffused the conversation by acknowledging my discomfort.
Ultimately, Valentine’s constraints during our interaction sparked curiosity about the nuanced programming behind his characteristics. With time, perhaps he will offer an experience more akin to Ani’s expansive conversational capabilities.
