641–650 of 1001 posts
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?
Also, safe harbor doesn't apply because this is published under the @grok handle! It's being published by X under one of their brand names, it's absurd to argue that they're unaware or not consenting to its publication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
> Well, there is evidence that this company made and distributed CSAM 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 mi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Edit: clarified the last sentence
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
It's not like the world benefited from safe harbor laws that much. Why don't just amend them so that algorithms that run on server side and platforms that recommend things are not eligible.
I remember encountering questionable hentai material (by accident) back in the Twitter days. But back then twitter was a leftist darling
I think there's a difference between "user uploaded material isn't properly moderated" and "the sites own chatbot generates porn on request based on images of women who didn't agree to it", no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
This might be an unpopular opinion but I always thought we might be better off without Web 2.0 where site owners aren’t held responsible for user content 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,…
Honest question: What does it mean to "raid" the offices of a tech company? It's not like they have file cabinets with paper records. Are they just seizing employee workstations? Seems like you'd want to subpoena source code or gmail history or something like that. Not much interesting in an office these days.
Sadly the media calls the lawful use of a warrant a 'raid' but that's another issue. The warrant will have detailed what it is they are looking for, French warrants (and legal system!) are quite a bit different than the US but in broad terms operate similarly. It suggests that an enforcement agency believes that there is evidence of a crime at the offices. As a former IT/operations guy I'd guess they want on-prem ser…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet routers, network cards, the computers, OS and various application software have no guardrails and is used for all the nefarious things. Why those companies aren't raided?
They don’t provide a large platform for political speech. This isn’t about AI or CSAM (Have we seen any other AI companies raided by governments for enabling creation of deepfakes, dangerous misinformation, illegal images, or for flagrant industrial-scale copyright infringement?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. 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?