E.U is replacing their citizens with unvetted violent criminals. They have to vote for whoever gives them free stuff. The powers doing this are upset a company in the U.S allows their citizens to protest it.
X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
821–830 of 1001 posts
Re: X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
#822I'm not saying I'm entirely against this, but just out of curiosity, what do they hope to find in a raid of the french offices, a folder labeled "Grok's CSAM Plan"?
> what do they hope to find in a raid of the french offices, a folder labeled "Grok's CSAM Plan"? You would be _amazed_ at the things that people commit to email and similar. Here's a Facebook one (leaked, not extracted by authorities): https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-...
I mean, the example you link is probably an engineer doing their job of signalling to hierarchy that something went deeply wrong. Of course, the lack of action of Facebook afterwards is a proof that they did not care, but not as much as a smoking gun.
A smoking gun would be, for instance, Facebook observing that most of their ads are scam, that the cost of fixing this exceeds by far "the cost of any regulatory settlement involving scam ads.", and to conclude that the company’s leadership decided to act only in response to impending regulatory action.
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...
Re: X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
#823Earlier 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.
In which broken society do you live where this is true? I would say drawing sexually explicit pictures of real persons without their consent and keeping them in your drawer is neither illegal nor morally reprehensible in most of the world. I am with you on publishing these...
I don't think one internet commenter can know or decide what is or isn't "morally reprehensible" in "most of the world". I don't speak for "most of the world" but I'm fairly sure "I drew nudes of your mom lol" will not go down well anywhere.
Re: X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
#824Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How about "R-Rated" violence like we see in popular movies? Movie ratings are a good example of a system for restricting who sees unacceptable content, yes.
More to the point, now that most productions are using intimacy coordinators, there's a degree of certainty around the consent of R-rated images. There's basically no consent with what Grok is doing.
> There's basically no consent with what Grok is doing.
Wait how do you get consent from people that don't exist?
Re: X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
#825Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Uncontrolled profileration of AI-CSAM makes detection of "genuine" data much harder I don't follow. If the prosecutor can't find evidence of a crime and a person is not charged, that is considered harmful? As such the 5th amendment would fall under the same category and so would encryption. Making law enforcement have to work harder to find evidence of a crime cannot be criminalized unless you can come up with a re…
If there is a glut of legal, AI generated CSAM material then this provides a lot of deniability for criminal creators/spreaders that cause genuine harm, and reduces "vigilance" of prosecutors, too ("it's probably just AI generated anyway..."). You could make a multitude of arguments against that perspective, but at least there is a conclusive reason for legal restrictions. > What is the criteria for this? My criteria…
> If there is a glut of legal, AI generated CSAM material then this provides a lot of deniability for criminal creators/spreaders that cause genuine harm, and reduces "vigilance" of prosecutors, too ("it's probably just AI generated anyway...").
> You could make a multitude of arguments against that perspective, but at least there is a conclusive reason for legal restrictions.
I don't know about that. Would "I didn't know it was real" really count as a legal defense?
Re: X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
#826Earlier 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?
But they are getting in trouble. However, for every one that gets in trouble, there's more that don't get discovered, or that don't get in trouble for it.
Besides, getting in trouble for something is already after the fact, the damage has been done. If it can't be done in the first place, or the barrier is too high for most, then the damage would have been prevented.
But this is a recurring dilemma.
Re: X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
#827[flagged]
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.
>> or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their consent
Who told you that? Go ask Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton about that one. There are rules about material created without consent, but people do not retain a perpetual right to have formerly consentual material taken down. Hollywood, let alone the porn industry, would collapse overnight if every disgruntled star could have movies removed whenever they feel like it simply by withdrawing "consent" years after creation.
And for copyright, generally the person on camera is not holding the camera and so is not the creator/owner of the material. That is a regular issue where people attempt to use the dmca to remove images of themselves from websites.
Re: X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
#828[flagged]
Largely a left-wing echo chamber here (and also seems to be much more European here than the average forum), so everyone here all thinks Musk is doing something illegal just because he's right-wing.
These raids are entirely political.
Re: X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
#829This 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.
There's no crowds or sides. It's all manufactured divisions because some of those who can't or don't want to create the technology are determined to control it. So they'll get you mad about what they need to, to justify actions that increase their control.
It's the same playbook that is used again and again. For war, civil liberties crackdowns, lockdowns, COVID, etc, etc: 0) I want (1); start playbook: A) Something bad is here, B) You need to feel X + Panic about it, C) We are solving it via (1). Because you reacted at B, you will support C. Problem, reaction, solution. Gives the playmakers the (1) they want.
We all know this is going on. But I guess we like knowing someone is pulling the strings. We like being led and maybe even manipulated because perhaps in the familiar system (which yields the undeniable goods of our current way of life), there is safety and stability? How else to explain.
Maybe the need to be entertained with drama is a hackable side effect of stable societies populated by people who evolved as warriors, hunters and survivors.
Re: X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok
#830Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is a glut of legal, AI generated CSAM material then this provides a lot of deniability for criminal creators/spreaders that cause genuine harm, and reduces "vigilance" of prosecutors, too ("it's probably just AI generated anyway..."). You could make a multitude of arguments against that perspective, but at least there is a conclusive reason for legal restrictions. > What is the criteria for this? My criteria…
> If there is a glut of legal, AI generated CSAM material then this provides a lot of deniability for criminal creators/spreaders that cause genuine harm, and reduces "vigilance" of prosecutors, too ("it's probably just AI generated anyway..."). > You could make a multitude of arguments against that perspective, but at least there is a conclusive reason for legal restrictions. I don't know about that. Would "I didn't…
> I don't know about that. Would "I didn't know it was real" really count as a legal defense?
Absolutely-- prosecution would presumably need to at least show that you could have known the material was "genuine".
This could be a huge legal boon for prosecuted "direct customers" and co-perpetrators that can only be linked via shared material.