3 ms·

I use AI, but I don't get such content. I understand everyone pouncing when X won't own Grok's output, but output is directly connected to its input and blame

by 9x39 10mo ago

I use AI, but I don't get such content. I understand everyone pouncing when X won't own Grok's output, but output is directly connected to its input and blame can be proportionally shared. Isn't this a problem for any public tool? Adversarial use is possible on any platform, and consistent law is far behind tech in this space today.

wmf 10mo ago
Unfortunately society seems to have decided that moderation is a complete replacement for personal accountability.
- skybrian 10mo ago
  An analogy: if you're running the zoo, the public's safety is your job for anyone who visits. It's of course also true that sometimes visitors act like idiots (and maybe should be prosecuted), and also that wild animals are not entirely predictable, but if the leopards are escaping, you're going to be judged for that.
  - wmf 10mo ago
    But the visitors are almost never prosecuted, even when something is obviously their fault.
    - skybrian 10mo ago
      Maybe because sometimes they're kids? You gotta kid-proof stuff in a zoo. Also, punishment is a rather inefficient way to teach the public anything. The people who come through the gate tomorrow probably won't know about the punishment. It will often be easier to fix the environment. Removing troublemakers probably does help in the short term and is a lot easier than punishing.
      - wmf 10mo ago
        Social media is mostly not removing troublemakers though.
- rescbr 10mo ago
  If the personal accountability happened at the speed and automation level that X allows Grok to produce revenge porn and CSAM, then I'd agree with you.
  - wmf 10mo ago
    I've been saying for years that we need the Internet equivalent of speeding tickets.
ebbi 10mo ago
Given X can quite simply control what Grok can and can't output, wouldn't you consider it a duty upon X to build those guardrails in for a situation like CSAM? I don't think there's any grey area here to argue against it.
- alex_suzuki 10mo ago
  Can they, though…?
  - jasonlotito 10mo ago
    Yes, they can. But... more importantly, they aren't even trying.
  - ebbi 10mo ago
    What makes you think they can't? From my knowledge (albeit limited) about the way LLMs are set up, they most definitely have abilities to include guardrails of what can't be produced. ChatGPT has some responses to prompts which stops users from proceeding. And X specifically: there have many cases of X adjusting Grok where Grok was not following a particular narrative on political issues (won't get into specifics here). But it was very clear and visible. Grok had certain outputs. Outcry from certain segments. Grok posts deleted. Trying the same prompts resulted in a different result. So yeah, it's possible.
    - Groxx 10mo ago
      Given how spectacular the failure of EVERY attempt to put guardrails on LLMs has been, across every single company selling LLM access, I'm not sure that's a reasonable belief. The guardrails have mostly worked. They have never ever been reliable.
    - alex_suzuki 10mo ago
      From my (admittedly also limited) understanding, there’s no bulletproof way to say “do NOT generate X” as it’s not non-deterministic and you can’t reverse engineer and excise the CSAM-generating parts of a model. “AI jailbreak prompts” are a thing.
jasonlotito 10mo ago
> but output is directly connected to its input and blame can be proportionally shared X can actively work to prevent this. They aren't. We aren't saying we should blame the person entering the input. But, we can say that the side producing CSAM can be held responsible if they choose to not do anything about it. > Isn't this a problem for any public tool? Adversarial use is possible on any platform Yes. Which is why the headline includes: "no fixes announced" and not just "X blames users for Grok-generated CSAM." Grok is producing CSAM. X is going to continue to allow that to happen. Bad things happen. How you respond is essential. Anyone who is trying to defend this is literally supporting a CSAM generation engine.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
wahnfrieden 10mo ago
Others have documented recent instances where Grok volunteers such edits and suggests turning innocent images into lewd content unprompted
queenkjuul 10mo ago
Which other tools publicly post CSAM?
UncleMeat 10mo ago
Yes, every image generation tool can be used to create revenge porn. But there are a bunch of important specifics here. 1. Twitter appears to be taking no effort to make this difficult. Even if people can evade guardrails this does not make the guardrails worthless. 2. Grok automatically posts the images publicly. Twitter is participating not only in the creation but also the distribution and boosting of this content. The reason why a ton of people doing this is not because they personally want to jack it to somebody, but because they want to humiliate them in public. 3. Decision makers at twitter are laughing about what this does to the platform and its users when they "post a picture of this person in their underwear" button is available next to every woman who posts on the platform. Even here they are focusing only on the illegal content, as if mountains of revenge porn being made of adult women isn't also odious.
bakies 10mo ago
This isn't adversarial use. It is implicitly allowed.
skywhopper 10mo ago
This is obviously not a problem for any other genAI tool unless I’ve missed some news.
Zetaphor 10mo ago
It is trivially easy to filter this with an LLM or even just a basic CLIP model. Will it be 100% foolproof? Not likely. Is it better than doing absolutely nothing and then blaming the users? Obviously. We've had this feature in the image generation tools since the first UI wrappers around Stable Diffusion 1.0.

by 9x39 10mo ago

wmf 10mo ago

Unfortunately society seems to have decided that moderation is a complete replacement for personal accountability.

skybrian 10mo ago
An analogy: if you're running the zoo, the public's safety is your job for anyone who visits. It's of course also true that sometimes visitors act like idiots (and maybe should be prosecuted), and also that wild animals are not entirely predictable, but if the leopards are escaping, you're going to be judged for that.
- wmf 10mo ago
  But the visitors are almost never prosecuted, even when something is obviously their fault.
  - skybrian 10mo ago
    Maybe because sometimes they're kids? You gotta kid-proof stuff in a zoo. Also, punishment is a rather inefficient way to teach the public anything. The people who come through the gate tomorrow probably won't know about the punishment. It will often be easier to fix the environment. Removing troublemakers probably does help in the short term and is a lot easier than punishing.
    - wmf 10mo ago
      Social media is mostly not removing troublemakers though.
rescbr 10mo ago
If the personal accountability happened at the speed and automation level that X allows Grok to produce revenge porn and CSAM, then I'd agree with you.
- wmf 10mo ago
  I've been saying for years that we need the Internet equivalent of speeding tickets.

ebbi 10mo ago

Given X can quite simply control what Grok can and can't output, wouldn't you consider it a duty upon X to build those guardrails in for a situation like CSAM? I don't think there's any grey area here to argue against it.

alex_suzuki 10mo ago
Can they, though…?
- jasonlotito 10mo ago
  Yes, they can. But... more importantly, they aren't even trying.
- ebbi 10mo ago
  What makes you think they can't? From my knowledge (albeit limited) about the way LLMs are set up, they most definitely have abilities to include guardrails of what can't be produced. ChatGPT has some responses to prompts which stops users from proceeding. And X specifically: there have many cases of X adjusting Grok where Grok was not following a particular narrative on political issues (won't get into specifics here). But it was very clear and visible. Grok had certain outputs. Outcry from certain segments. Grok posts deleted. Trying the same prompts resulted in a different result. So yeah, it's possible.
  - Groxx 10mo ago
    Given how spectacular the failure of EVERY attempt to put guardrails on LLMs has been, across every single company selling LLM access, I'm not sure that's a reasonable belief. The guardrails have mostly worked. They have never ever been reliable.
  - alex_suzuki 10mo ago
    From my (admittedly also limited) understanding, there’s no bulletproof way to say “do NOT generate X” as it’s not non-deterministic and you can’t reverse engineer and excise the CSAM-generating parts of a model. “AI jailbreak prompts” are a thing.

jasonlotito 10mo ago

> but output is directly connected to its input and blame can be proportionally shared X can actively work to prevent this. They aren't. We aren't saying we should blame the person entering the input. But, we can say that the side producing CSAM can be held responsible if they choose to not do anything about it. > Isn't this a problem for any public tool? Adversarial use is possible on any platform Yes. Which is why the headline includes: "no fixes announced" and not just "X blames users for Grok-generated CSAM." Grok is producing CSAM. X is going to continue to allow that to happen. Bad things happen. How you respond is essential. Anyone who is trying to defend this is literally supporting a CSAM generation engine.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

wahnfrieden 10mo ago

Others have documented recent instances where Grok volunteers such edits and suggests turning innocent images into lewd content unprompted

queenkjuul 10mo ago

Which other tools publicly post CSAM?

UncleMeat 10mo ago

Yes, every image generation tool can be used to create revenge porn. But there are a bunch of important specifics here. 1. Twitter appears to be taking no effort to make this difficult. Even if people can evade guardrails this does not make the guardrails worthless. 2. Grok automatically posts the images publicly. Twitter is participating not only in the creation but also the distribution and boosting of this content. The reason why a ton of people doing this is not because they personally want to jack it to somebody, but because they want to humiliate them in public. 3. Decision makers at twitter are laughing about what this does to the platform and its users when they "post a picture of this person in their underwear" button is available next to every woman who posts on the platform. Even here they are focusing only on the illegal content, as if mountains of revenge porn being made of adult women isn't also odious.

bakies 10mo ago

This isn't adversarial use. It is implicitly allowed.

skywhopper 10mo ago

This is obviously not a problem for any other genAI tool unless I’ve missed some news.

Zetaphor 10mo ago

It is trivially easy to filter this with an LLM or even just a basic CLIP model. Will it be 100% foolproof? Not likely. Is it better than doing absolutely nothing and then blaming the users? Obviously. We've had this feature in the image generation tools since the first UI wrappers around Stable Diffusion 1.0.