571–580 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
In your hypothetical scenario, why aren't the school kids making and distributing fake nudes of his daughter be the ones getting in trouble? Have we a outsourced all accountability for the crimes of humans to AI now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your hypothetical scenario, why aren't the school kids making and distributing fake nudes of his daughter be the ones getting in trouble? Have we a outsourced all accountability for the crimes of humans to AI now?
Punishing kids after the fact does not stop the damage from occurring. Nothing can stop the damage that has already occurred, but if you stop the source of the nudes, you can stop future damage from occurring to even more girls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
In your hypothetical scenario, why aren't the school kids making and distributing fake nudes of his daughter be the ones getting in trouble? Have we a outsourced all accountability for the crimes of humans to AI now?
Those boys absolutely should be held accountable. But I also don't think that Grok should be able to quickly and easily generate fake revenge porn for minors.
[1] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/girl-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your hypothetical scenario, why aren't the school kids making and distributing fake nudes of his daughter be the ones getting in trouble? Have we a outsourced all accountability for the crimes of humans to AI now?
It's not hypothetical. And in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. Those boys absolutely should be held accountable. But I also don't think that Grok should be able to quickly and easily generate fake revenge porn for minors. [1] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/girl-...
And the AI is at fault for this sentencing, not the school authorities/prosecutors/judges dishing justice? WTF.
How is this an AI problem and not a legal system problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would raiding the office achieve in this case apart from just showing off power.
In such a case specifically: Uncover internal communication that shows the company was aware of the problem and ignored it, which presumably affects liability a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the reasoning is that the AI contributes to more epsteins. In some way.
How? 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…
Apart from doom wasn't producing illegal content.
the point is that grok is generating illegal content for those jurisdictions. In france you can't generate CSAM, in the UK you can't distribute CSAM. Those are actual laws with legal tests, none of them need to be of actual people, they just need to depict _children_ to be illegal.
Moral panics require new laws to enforce, generally. This is just enforcing already existing laws.
More over, had it been any other site, it would have been totally shut down by now and the servers impounded. Its only because musk is close to trump and rich that he's escaped the fate than you or I would have had if we'd done the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers. The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography.
I'm of two minds about this. One the one hand, it seems "obvious" that Grok should somehow be legally required to have guardrails stopping it from producing kiddie porn. On the other hand, it also seems "obvious" that laws forcing 3D printers to detect and block attempts to print firearms are patently bullshit. The thing is, I'm not sure how I can reconcile those two seemingly-obvious statements in a principled manne…
Grok makes it trivial to create fake CSAM or other explicit images. Before, if someone spent a week on photoshop to do the same, It won't be Adobe that gets the blame.
Same for 3D printers. Before, anyone could make a gun provided they have the right tools (which is very expensive), now it's being argued that 3D printers are making this more accessible. Although I would argue it's always been easy to make a gun, all you need is a piece of pipe. So I don't entirely buy the moral panic against 3D printers.
Where that threshold lies I don't know. But I think that's the crux if it. Technology is making previously difficult things easier, to the benefit of all humanity. It's just unfortunate that some less-nice things have also been included.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Punishing kids after the fact does not stop the damage from occurring. Nothing can stop the damage that has already occurred, but if you stop the source of the nudes, you can stop future damage from occurring to even more girls.
[flagged]
Edit for the addition of the line about bullying: "Bullying has always happened, therefore we should allow new forms of even worse bullying to flourish freely, even though I readily acknowledge that it can lead to victims committing suicide" is a bizarre and self-contradictory take. I don't know what point you think you're making.
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
[flagged]
The "oh its photoshop" defence was an early one, which required the law to change in the uk to be "depictions" of children, so that people who talk about ebephiles don't have an out for creating/distributing illegal content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I mean, perhaps it's time to completely drop these US-owned, closed-source, algo-driven controversial platforms I think we are getting very close the the EU's own great firewall. There is currently a sort of identity crisis in the regulation. Big tech companies are breaking the laws left and right. So which is it? - fine harvesting mechanism? Keep as-is. - true user protection? Blacklist.
Or the companies could obey the law