11–20 of 103 posts
“AI products must be tested rigorously before they go to market to ensure they do not have the capability to generate this material,” Not possible.
You don't have the right to act in violation of the law merely because it's the only way to make a buck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not possible. To which governments, courts, and populations likely respond "We don't care if you can't go to market. We don't want models that do this. Solve it or don't offer your services here." Also… I think they probably could solve this. AI image analysis is a thing. AI that estimate age from an image has been a thing for ages. It's not like the idea of throwing the entire internet worth of images at a trainin…
These models generate probably a billion images a day. If getting it wrong for even one of those images is enough to get the entire model banned then it probably isn't possible and this de facto outlaws all image models. That may precisely be the point of this tbh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not possible. To which governments, courts, and populations likely respond "We don't care if you can't go to market. We don't want models that do this. Solve it or don't offer your services here." Also… I think they probably could solve this. AI image analysis is a thing. AI that estimate age from an image has been a thing for ages. It's not like the idea of throwing the entire internet worth of images at a trainin…
These models generate probably a billion images a day. If getting it wrong for even one of those images is enough to get the entire model banned then it probably isn't possible and this de facto outlaws all image models. That may precisely be the point of this tbh.
It's like cyber insurance requirements - for better or worse, you need to show that you have been audited, not prove you are actually safe.
It seems X's Grok became the first large LLM provider to weaken the content moderation rules. If people don't react enough, we will likely lose the first line of defense for keeping AI safe for anyone. Large providers need to act responsibly as the barrier of entry is practically 0.
“AI products must be tested rigorously before they go to market to ensure they do not have the capability to generate this material,” Not possible.
Then your business can fairly be ruled illegal. You don't have the right to act in violation of the law merely because it's the only way to make a buck.
It seems X's Grok became the first large LLM provider to weaken the content moderation rules. If people don't react enough, we will likely lose the first line of defense for keeping AI safe for anyone. Large providers need to act responsibly as the barrier of entry is practically 0.
“AI products must be tested rigorously before they go to market to ensure they do not have the capability to generate this material,” Not possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These models generate probably a billion images a day. If getting it wrong for even one of those images is enough to get the entire model banned then it probably isn't possible and this de facto outlaws all image models. That may precisely be the point of this tbh.
If they can't prevent child porn, then it should be banned.
Also, lets test your commitment to consistency on this matter. In most jurisdictions possession and creation of CSAM is a strict liability crime, so do you support prosecuting whatever journalist demonstrated this capability to the maximum extent of the law? Or are you only in favor of protecting children when it happens to advance other priorities of yours?
“AI products must be tested rigorously before they go to market to ensure they do not have the capability to generate this material,” Not possible.
> Not possible. To which governments, courts, and populations likely respond "We don't care if you can't go to market. We don't want models that do this. Solve it or don't offer your services here." Also… I think they probably could solve this. AI image analysis is a thing. AI that estimate age from an image has been a thing for ages. It's not like the idea of throwing the entire internet worth of images at a trainin…
No, they likely won't. AI has become far too big to fail at this point. So much money has been invested in it that speculation on AI alone is holding back a global economic collapse. Governments and companies have invested in AI so deeply that all failure modes have become existential.
If models can't be contained, controlled or properly regulated then they simply won't be contained, controlled or properly regulated.
We'll attempt it, of course, but the limits of what the law deems acceptable will be entirely defined by what is necessary for AI to succeed, because at this point it must. There's no turning back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they can't prevent child porn, then it should be banned.
Should photoshop be outlawed? What about MS Paint? Both of them I’m pretty sure are capable of creating this stuff. Also, lets test your commitment to consistency on this matter. In most jurisdictions possession and creation of CSAM is a strict liability crime, so do you support prosecuting whatever journalist demonstrated this capability to the maximum extent of the law? Or are you only in favor of protecting childr…
I did not see the details of what happened, but if someone did in fact take a photo of a real child they had no connection to and caused the images to be created, then yes, they should be investigated, and if the prosecutor thinks they can get a conviction they should be charged.
That is just what the law says today (AIUI), and is consistent with how it has been applied.