3 ms·
I feel that for this kind of AI stuff, the company behind the model could probably argue that they're not liable for what the individual user generates. So that
by sham1 3y ago
I feel that for this kind of AI stuff, the company behind the model could probably argue that they're not liable for what the individual user generates. So that for example with CSAM, that as long as they make sure that the training data doesn't contain that stuff, they probably should be fine and not be liable and/or criminally prosecuted.
Of course, an actual lawyer could probably explain why this would be a bad idea, but at least I as a non-lawyer don't see where the problem lies (aside from the fact that the company wouldn't want their stuff to be used to create CSAM, which is fair).
- ADeerAppeared 3y agoThey are not liable for what the user generates, sure. That is a plausible legal argument. But these AI systems do not just generate CSAM by happenstance or the user tricking them into doing it. These systems have their training data obtained by scraping everything off the internet. There is a lot of CSAM (and whatever you will call text/literature describing such things) on the internet, and so, in the training data. OpenAI had some of their Kenyan data tagging partners quit the contract because they had to tag which images and text were CSAM. (With none of the already-insufficient mental health resources afforded to social media moderation staff)