4 ms·

> Where does the line fall between provider responsibility when providing a tool that can produce protected work, and personal responsibility for causing it to

> Where does the line fall between provider responsibility when providing a tool that can produce protected work, and personal responsibility for causing it to generate that work? There's one more line at issue here, and that's the posting of the infringing work. A neutral tool that can generate policy-violating material has an ambiguous status, and if the tool's output ends up on Twitter then it's definitely the user's problem. But here, it seems like the Grok outputs are directly and publicly posted by X itself. The user may have intended that outcome, but the user might not have. From the article: >> In a comment on the DogeDesigner thread, a computer programmer pointed out that X users may inadvertently generate inappropriate images—back in August, for example, Grok generated nudes of Taylor Swift without being asked. Those users can’t even delete problematic images from the Grok account to prevent them from spreading, the programmer noted. Overall, I think it's fair to argue that ownership follows the user tag. Even if Grok's output is entirely "user-generated content," X publishing that content under its own banner must take ownership for policy and legal implications.

XorNot 9mo ago
This is also legally problematic: many jurisdictions now have specific laws about the synthesis of CSAM or modifying peoples likenesses. So exactly who is considered the originator is a pretty legally relevant question particularly if Grok is just off doing whatever and then posting it from your input. "The persistent AI bot we made treated that as a user instruction and followed it" is a heck of a chain of causality in court, but you also fairly obviously don't want to allow people to laundry intent with AI (which is very much what X is trying to do here).

4 ms·

> Where does the line fall between provider responsibility when providing a tool that can produce protected work, and personal responsibility for causing it to

by Majromax 9mo ago

XorNot 9mo ago
This is also legally problematic: many jurisdictions now have specific laws about the synthesis of CSAM or modifying peoples likenesses. So exactly who is considered the originator is a pretty legally relevant question particularly if Grok is just off doing whatever and then posting it from your input. "The persistent AI bot we made treated that as a user instruction and followed it" is a heck of a chain of causality in court, but you also fairly obviously don't want to allow people to laundry intent with AI (which is very much what X is trying to do here).