White Circle researchers discovered that leading AI image generators, including DALL·E 3, Nano Banana 2, and GPT-Image-2, can be easily tricked into producing explicit content. The findings, published in a preprint last month, show that the models can be bypassed using off-the-shelf tools and API calls, without requiring custom or advanced AI models.
Using a novel attack method, White Circle found that about 13 percent of prompts on DALL·E 3 generated explicit content confirmed by human reviewers, while the rate was under 10 percent for Nano Banana 2 and about 3 percent for GPT-Image-2.
These results, which the researchers called the highest of any method tested under the same standard, suggest that the defenses built by leading labs are weaker than they admit.
The attack method, dubbed “Red-teaming via Iterative Strategy Evolution” (RISE), relies on an attacking model and a judge model to verify outputs.
The attacking model is a publicly available version of Qwen3-32B with safety training stripped out, and the judge model is Gemini 2.5 Flash. Shilov emphasized that no frontier models were needed to break the defenses, which he called “very interesting.”
"Using just off-the-shelf tools, available online for anyone to download, and by sending API calls, White Circle was able to use the novel attack method to bypass the safety filters," said Denis Shilov, CEO of White Circle. This method highlights the gaps in current safety measures, which Shilov argues are not keeping pace with the increasing capabilities of AI models.
The announcement follows the release of new models by Google and OpenAI, including ChatGPT Images 2.5 and Nano Banana 2.1, which White Circle found to be significantly more breakable than their previous versions.
Neither company responded to Ars’ request for comment on the findings. Shilov noted that the newer models may be more sophisticated or that safety has been deprioritized in favor of capability.
White Circle is also in early talks with government officials about third-party safety testing, which Shilov believes should be mandatory. He argued that AI firms are investing more in compute and infrastructure than in safety measures, which could lead to greater risks.
"They should be investing much more into safety measures and security measures around their models," Shilov told Ars. "And for us, it seems that they’re not actually doing this."
Source: arstechnica