801–810 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit and BlueSky would be the first to go if that were actually the criteria for banning a platform.
God I hope so
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 is publishing the CSAM photos for everyone to see. It is used as a tool for harassment and abuse, literally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's kinda the normalization argument, not the reason behind it "it is done because it's always done so"
I'm not sure what you're getting at, physical investigation is the common procedure. You need a reason _not_ to do it, and since "it's all digital" is not a good reason we go back to doing the usual thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I wonder what they will find. They seemed to have acknowledged working on the problem before. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2011432649353511350
Elites need a reckoning
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?
We fault and "fine" companies for providing products that harm society all the time
Are you not going to consider the company providing a CSAM machine to be the major one at fault here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to create, own, distribute or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their consent, regardless if they are underage or not. Grok is a platform that is enabling this en masse. If xAI can't bring in guardrails or limit who can access these capabilities, then they deserve what's coming to them.
>It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to create, own, distribute or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their consent, regardless if they are underage or not. Arguably morally reprehensible but it has not always been illegal (and still isn't in many places) if you're talking about images of adults.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if you don't follow EU laws prepare to not do business in Europe. Likewise, if you don't follow US laws I'd advise against trying to do business in USA.
If X/Twitter was to be banned in the EU, and some of its citizens still wanted to access X/Twitter, let us say for the sake of getting alternative points of view on politics and news, would it be a good or a bad thing if accessing X/Twitter by IP was stopped? As in, a citizen of an EU country types x.com/CNN, because he or she wants to know the other side of some political issue between the EU and the USA, and he or…
Or in other words: I would block the do business-part, not the access part.
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.
Good old HN. Users losing their collective minds over rule of law and CSAM being bad.