4 ms·

Even ignoring that Grok is generating the content, not users, I think you can still hold to Section 230 protections while thinking that companies should take mo

Even ignoring that Grok is generating the content, not users, I think you can still hold to Section 230 protections while thinking that companies should take more significant moderation actions with regards to issues like this. For example, if someone posted CSAM on HN and Dang deleted it, I think that it would be wrong to go after HN for hosting the content temporarily. But if HN hosted a service that actively facilitated, trivialized, and generated CSAM on behalf of users, with no or virtually no attempt to prevent that, then I think that mere deletion after the fact would be insufficient. But again, you can just use "Grok is generating the content" to differentiate if that doesn't compel you.

SirMaster 9mo ago
Should Adobe be held accountable if someone creates CSAM using their software? They could put image recognition into it that would block it, but they don't. Look what happens when you put in an image of money into Photoshop. They detect it and block it.
- staticassertion 9mo ago
  I don't know. Does it matter what I think about that? Let's say I answer "yes, they should". Then what? Or what if I say "no, I see a difference". Then what? Who cares about Adobe? I'm talking about Grok. I can consistently say "I believe platforms should moderate content in accordance with Section 230" while also saying "And I think that the moderation of content with regards to CSAM, for major platforms with XYZ capabilities should be stricter". The answer to "what about Adobe?" is then either that it falls into one of those two categories, in which case you have your answer, or it doesn't, in which case it isn't relevant to what I've said.
- KaiserPro 9mo ago
  Logical fallacy. but to answer your point, no for two reasons: 1) you need to bring your own source material to create it. You can't press a button that says "make child porn" 2) its not a reasonable to expect that someone would be able to make CSAM in photoshop. However more importantly the user is the one hosting the software, not adobe.
  - SirMaster 9mo ago
    >You can't press a button that says "make child porn" Where is this button in Grok? You have to as the user explicitly write out a very obviously bad request. Nobody is going to accidentally get CSAM content without making a conscious choice about a prompt that's pretty clearly targeting it.
    - KaiserPro 9mo ago
      is it reasonable (legal term, ie anyone can do it) that someone with little effort could create CSAM using photoshop? No, you need to train, take a lot of time and effort to do it. with grok you say "hey make a sexy version of [picture of this minor]" and it'll do it. that doesn't take traning, and its not a high bar to stopping people doing it. The non-CSAM example is this, it's illegal, in the USA to make anything that looks like a US dollar bill. ie photocopiers have blocks on them to stop you making copies of it. You can get round that as a private citizen but its still illegal. A company knowingly making a photocopier that allows you to photocopy dollar bills is in for a bad time.

SirMaster 9mo ago

Should Adobe be held accountable if someone creates CSAM using their software? They could put image recognition into it that would block it, but they don't. Look what happens when you put in an image of money into Photoshop. They detect it and block it.

staticassertion 9mo ago
I don't know. Does it matter what I think about that? Let's say I answer "yes, they should". Then what? Or what if I say "no, I see a difference". Then what? Who cares about Adobe? I'm talking about Grok. I can consistently say "I believe platforms should moderate content in accordance with Section 230" while also saying "And I think that the moderation of content with regards to CSAM, for major platforms with XYZ capabilities should be stricter". The answer to "what about Adobe?" is then either that it falls into one of those two categories, in which case you have your answer, or it doesn't, in which case it isn't relevant to what I've said.
KaiserPro 9mo ago
Logical fallacy. but to answer your point, no for two reasons: 1) you need to bring your own source material to create it. You can't press a button that says "make child porn" 2) its not a reasonable to expect that someone would be able to make CSAM in photoshop. However more importantly the user is the one hosting the software, not adobe.
- SirMaster 9mo ago
  >You can't press a button that says "make child porn" Where is this button in Grok? You have to as the user explicitly write out a very obviously bad request. Nobody is going to accidentally get CSAM content without making a conscious choice about a prompt that's pretty clearly targeting it.
  - KaiserPro 9mo ago
    is it reasonable (legal term, ie anyone can do it) that someone with little effort could create CSAM using photoshop? No, you need to train, take a lot of time and effort to do it. with grok you say "hey make a sexy version of [picture of this minor]" and it'll do it. that doesn't take traning, and its not a high bar to stopping people doing it. The non-CSAM example is this, it's illegal, in the USA to make anything that looks like a US dollar bill. ie photocopiers have blocks on them to stop you making copies of it. You can get round that as a private citizen but its still illegal. A company knowingly making a photocopier that allows you to photocopy dollar bills is in for a bad time.