501–510 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not really different from how we treat any other platform that can host CSAM. I guess the main difference is that it's being "made" instead of simply "distributed" here
[flagged]
If you want. In many countries the law doesn’t. If you don’t like the law your billion dollar company still has to follow it. At least in theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is very different. It is YOUR 3d printer, no one else is involved. You might print a knife and kill somebody with it, you go to jail, not third party involved. If you use a service like Grok, then you use somebody elses computer / things. X is the owner from computer that produced CP. So of course X is at least also a bit liable for producing CP.
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Let's raid car companies too. We were all born into this. We never had a vote. Thomas Jefferson is said to have written Constitutions ought to be re-written every so often or the dead rule by fiat decree. Let's. The rich can join in the austerity too. No one voted for them. We been conditioned to pick acquiescence or poverty. We were abused into kowtowing to a bunch of pants shitting dementia addled olds educated in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is like comparing the danger of a machine gun to that of a block of lead.
May be. We do have codified in law definition of machine gun which clearly separates it from a block of lead. What codified in law definitions are used here to separate photoshop from Grok in the context of those deepfakes and CSAM? Without such clear legal definitions going after Grok while not going after photoshop is just an act of political pressure.
What you’re implying here is that Musk should be immune from any prosecution simply because he is right wing, which…
This vindicates the pro-AI censorship crowd I guess. It definitely makes it clear what is expected of AI companies. Your users aren't responsible for what they use your model for, you are, so you'd better make sure your model can't ever be used for anything nefarious. If you can't do that without keeping the model closed and verifying everyone's identities... well, that's good for your profits I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is very different. It is YOUR 3d printer, no one else is involved. You might print a knife and kill somebody with it, you go to jail, not third party involved. If you use a service like Grok, then you use somebody elses computer / things. X is the owner from computer that produced CP. So of course X is at least also a bit liable for producing CP.
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
If you’re hosting content, why shouldn’t you be responsible, because your business model is impossible if you’re held to account for what’s happening on your premises?
Without safe harbor, people might have to jump through the hoops of buying their own domain name, and hosting content themselves, would that be so bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Those images are generated from a training set, and it is already well known and reported that those training sets contain _real_ CSAM, real violence, real abuse. That "generated" face of a child is based on real images of real children.
Everybody else has teams building guardrails to mitigate this fundamental existential horror of these models. Musk fired all the safety people and decided to go all in on “adult” content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is very different. It is YOUR 3d printer, no one else is involved. You might print a knife and kill somebody with it, you go to jail, not third party involved. If you use a service like Grok, then you use somebody elses computer / things. X is the owner from computer that produced CP. So of course X is at least also a bit liable for producing CP.
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you miss the numerous news reports? Example: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbo... For obvious reasons, decent people are not about to go out and try to general child sexual abuse material to prove a point to you, if that’s what you’re asking for.
First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. They always try hard to make everything about him sound as negative as possible. Second, last time I tried, Grok even refused to create pictures of naked adults. I just tried again and this is still the case: https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab The claim that they released a tool with "seemingly no guardrailes" is therefore c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion I think the reason they raided the offices for CSAM would be there are laws on the books for CSAM and not for social manipulation. If people could be jailed for manipulation there would be no social media platforms, lobbyists, political campaign groups or advertisements. People are already being manipulated by AI. On a related note given AI is just a tool and requires someone to tell it to make CSAM I t…
hold on, are you saying that you should be able to be jailed for manipulation? Where would that end? could i be jailed if i post a review for a restaurant if you feel it manipulated you? or anyone stating an opinion could be construed as manipulation. that is beyond a slippery slope, that is an authoritarian nightmare.
Its the usual deal from the that crowd:
- when the left does it, it’s just them using their civil liberties
- when the right does it, its illegal manipulation, election interference, fascism and/or Russian disinformation.
It’s the same crowd which keeps using the phrase “our democracy”.
Behaviour like this really makes me wonder who they are, and who they deem not worthy to be included in “their” democracy.