531–540 of 1001 posts
Good one. No platform ever should allow CSAM content. And the fact that they didn’t even care and haven’t want to spend money for implementing guardrails or moderation is deeply concerning. This has imho nothing to do with model censorship, but everything with allowing that kind of content on a platform
One of the charges is "fraudulent data extraction by an organised group." That's going to affect the entire social media industry if applied broadly.
I still believe that the EU and aligned countries would rather have America to agree to much tighter speech controls, digital ID, ToS-based speech codes as apparently US Democrats partly or totally agree to. But if they have workable alternatives they will deal with them from a different position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In France it's possible without legal consequences (though immoral), if you call 119, you can push to have a baby taken from a family for no reason except that you do not like someone. Claim that you suspect there may be abuse, it will trigger a case for a "worrying situation". Then it's a procedural lottery: -> If you get lucky, they will investigate, meet the people, and dismiss the case. -> If you get unlucky, the…
I can't believe theres a country out there that has recreated the DMCA but for child welfare
> Prosecutors say they are now investigating whether X has broken the law across multiple areas. This step could come before a police raid. This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers.
Well, there is evidence that this company made and distributed CSAM and pornographic deepfakes to make a profit. There is no evidence lacking there for the investigators. So the question becomes if it was done knowingly or recklessly, hence a police raid for evidence. See also [0] for a legal discussion in the German context. [0] https://arxiv.org/html/2601.03788v1
I think one big issue with this statement – "CSAM" lacks a precise legal definition; the precise legal term(s) vary from country to country, with differing definitions. While sexual imagery of real minors is highly illegal everywhere, there's a whole lot of other material – textual stories, drawings, animation, AI-generated images of nonexistent minors – which can be extremely criminal on one side of an international border, de facto legal on the other.
And I'm not actually sure what the legal definition is in France; the relevant article of the French Penal Code 227-23 [0] seems superficially similar to the legal definition of "child pornography" in the United States (post-Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition), and so some–but (maybe) not all–of the "CSAM" Grok is accused of generating wouldn't actually fall under it. (But of course, I don't know how French courts interpret it, so maybe what it means in practice is something broader than my reading of the text suggests.)
And I think this is part of the issue – xAI's executives are likely focused on compliance with US law on these topics, less concerned with complying with non-US law, in spite of the fact that CSAM laws in much of the rest of the world are much broader than in the US. That's less of an issue for Anthropic/Google/OpenAI, since their executives don't have the same "anything that's legal" attitude which xAI often has. And, as I said – while that's undoubtedly true in general, I'm unsure to what extent it is actually true for France in particular.
[0] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT0000...
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.
Let’s take a step back and remove AI generation from the conversation for a moment. Did X do enough to prevent its website being used to distribute illegal content - consensual sexual material of both adults and children? Now reintroduce AI generation, where X plays a more active role in facilitating the creation of that illegal content.
[flagged]
[flagged]
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/starmers-government-aids-po...
Unlike the US administration which seems to be fine with what epstein and X are doing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
The safe harbor provisions largely protect X from the content that the users post (within reason). Suddenly Grok/X were actually producing the objectionable content. Users were making gross requests and then an LLM owned by X, using X servers and X code would generate the illegal material and then post it to the website. The entity responsible is no longer done user but instead the company itself.
I'd guess Elon is responsible for that product decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think the reasoning is that the AI contributes to more epsteins. In some way.
THat's like the 1993 moral panic that video games like Doom cause mass shootings, or the 1980's mass panic that metal music causes satanist, or the 1950s moral panic that superhero comic book violence leads to juvenile delinquency. Politicians are constantly looking for an external made up enemy to divert attention to from the real problems.
People like Epstein and mass woman/child exploitation have existed for thousands of years in the past, and will exist thousands of years in the future. It's part of the nature of the rich and powerful to execute on their deranged fetishes, it's been documented in writing since at least the Roman and Ottoman empires.
Hell, I can guarantee you there's other Epsteins operating in the wild right now, that we haven't heard of (yet), it's not like he was in any way unique. I can also guarantee you that 1 in 5-10 normal looking people you meet daily on the street have similar deranged desires as the guests on Epstein's island but can't execute on them because they're not as rich and influential to get away with it, but they'd do it if they could.