661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Not the same - the barrier to entry was too high. Most people don't have the skills to edit photos using Photoshop. Grok enabled this to happen to scale for users who are complete non techies. With grok, anyone who could type in a half-coherent sentence in English could generate and disseminate these images. Edit: clarified the last sentence
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.
This is not about AI but about censorship of a nonaligned social network. It's been a developing current in EU. They have basically been foaming at the mouth at the platform since it got bought.
If it was about blocking the social media they'd just block it, like they did with Russia Today, CUII-Liste Lina, or Pavel Durov.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law is concrete on this. In the UK, you must take "reasonable" steps to remove illegal content. This normally means some basic detection (ie fingerprinting which is widely used from a collaborative database) or if a user is consistently uploading said stuff, banning them. Allowing a service that you run to continue to generate said illegal content, even after you publicly admit that you know its wrong, is not rea…
that doesn't sound concrete to me, at all
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.
This is the wrong take. Yes they could have an uncensored model, but then they would need proper moderation and delete this kind of content instantly or ban users that produce it. Or don’t allow it in the first place. It doesn’t matter how CSAM is produced, the only thing that matters is that is on the platform. I am flabbergasted people even defend this
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.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Holding corporations accountable for their profit streams is "censorship?" I wish they'd stop passing models trained on internet conversations and hoarded data as fit for any purpose. The world does not need to boil oceans for hallucinating chat bots at this particular point in history.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the wrong take. Yes they could have an uncensored model, but then they would need proper moderation and delete this kind of content instantly or ban users that produce it. Or don’t allow it in the first place. It doesn’t matter how CSAM is produced, the only thing that matters is that is on the platform. I am flabbergasted people even defend this
It matters whether they attempt to block it or encourage it. Musk encouraged it, until legal pressure hit, then moved it behind a paywall so it's harder to see evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That is not the same. Correct comparison would be: You provide a photo studio with an adjacent art gallery and allow people to shoot CSAM content there and then exhibit their work.
And the camera is pointing out the window so you can use it on strangers walking by.
There is a point in law where you make something so easy to misuse that you become liable for the misuse.
In the USA they have "attractive nuisance", like building a kid's playground on top of a pit of snakes. That's so obviously a dumb idea that you become liable for the snake–bitten kids — you can't save yourself by arguing that you didn't give the kids permission to use the playground, that it's on private property, that the kids should have seen the snakes, or that it's legal to own snakes. No, you set up a situation where people were obviously going to get hurt and you become liable for the hurt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how he'll try to get out of being summoned. Claim 4/20 is a holiday that he celebrates?
> Claim 4/20 is a holiday that he celebrates? Given his recent "far right" bromance that's probably not a good idea ;)