3 ms·

I don't know, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with this whole saga. Perhaps I havent seen the full story. The fact of the matter is they do have a policy an

I don't know, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with this whole saga. Perhaps I havent seen the full story. The fact of the matter is they do have a policy and they have removed it, suspended accounts and perhaps even taken it further. As would be the case on other platforms. As far as I understand there is no nudity generated by grok. Should public gpt models be prevented from generating detestable things, yes I can see the case for that. I won't argue there is a line between acceptable and unacceptable, but please remember people perv over less (Rule 34). Are bikinis now taboo attire? What next, ankles, elbows, the entire human body?(Just like the Taliban). (Edit: I'm mentioning this paragraph for my below point.) GPT's are not clever enough to make the distinction by the way either, so there's an unrealistic technical challenge here. I suspect the this saga blowing out of proportion is purely "eLoN BAd".

KaiserPro 9mo ago
Nice logical fallacies. > As far as I understand there is no nudity generated by grok. There is nudity, and more importantly there is CSAM material being generated. reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/grok/comments/1pijcgq/unlocking_groks_imagine_for_nudes_and_spicy_shit/ https://www.reddit.com/r/grok/comments/1pijcgq/unlocking_gro... > Are bikinis now taboo attire? generating sexualised pictures of kids is verboten. Thats epstien level of illegality. There is no legitiamte need for the public to hold, make or transmit sexualised images of children. Anyone arguing otherwise has a lot of questions to answer
- KoolKat23 9mo ago
  You're the one making the logical fallacies and reacting emotionally. Read what I have said first please. That is a different grok to the one publishing images and discussed in the article. Your link clearly states they are being moderated in the comments and all comments are discussing adults only. The links comments also imply that these folks are jailbreaking nearly, because of guardrails that exist too. As I say read what I said, please don't put words in my mouth. The GPT models wouldn't know what is sexualised. I said there is a line at some point. Non-sexualized bikinis are sold everywhere, do you not use the internet to buy clothes? Your immediate dismissive reaction indicates you are not giving what I'm saying any thought. This is what puritanical thought often looks like. The discourse is so poisoned people can't stop, look at the facts and think rationally.
  - KaiserPro 9mo ago
    > reacting emotionally I don't think there is much emotion in said post. I am making specific assertions. to your point: > Non-sexualized bikinis are sold everywhere Correct! the key logical modifier is Non sexual. Also you'll note that a lot of clothing companies do not show images of children in swimwear. Partly that's down to what I imagine you would term puritanism, but also legal counsel. The definition of a CSAM is loose enough (in some jurisdictions) to cover swimwear, depending on context. That context is challenging. A parent looking for clothes that will fit/suit their child is clearly not sexualised (corner cases exist, as I said context) Someone else who is using if for sexual purposes is not. and because like GPL3 CSAM is infectious, the tariff for both company and end user is rather high for making, storing, transmitting and downloading those images. If someone is convicted of collecting those images, and using them for a sexual purpose, then images that were created that were not-CSAM suddenly become CSAM, and legally toxic to posses. (context does come in here.) > Your link clearly states they are being moderated in the comments Which tells us that there is a lot of work on guardrails right? its a choice by xai to allow users to do this. (mainly the app is hamstrung so that you have to pay for the spicy mode.) Whether its done by an ML model or not is irrelevant. Knowingly allowing CSAM generation and transmission is illegal. if you or I were to host an ML model that allows user to do the same thing, we would be in jail. There is a reason why other companies are not doing this. The law must be applied equally, regardless of wealth, or power. I think that is my main objection to all of this. its clearly CSAM, and anyone other than musk doing this would have been censured by now. All of this justification is because of who it is doing this, rather than what is being done. We can bike shed all we want about is it actually really CSAM, which negates the entire point of this, which is its clearly breaking the law. > The GPT models wouldn't know what is sexualised. ML Classification is really rather good now. Instagram's unsupervised categorisation model is really rather effective at working out context of an image or video (ie differentiation of clothes, and context of those clothes.) > please don't put words in my mouth I have not done this, I am asserting that the bar for justifying this kind of content, which is clearly illegal and easily prevented (ie a picture of a minor and "generate an image of her in sexy clothes") is very high. Now you could argue that I'm implying that you have something to hide. I am actually curious as to your motives for justifying the knowing creation of sexualised images of minors. You've made a weak argument that there are legitimate purposes. You then argue that its a slippery slope. Is your fear that this brings justifies an age gated internet? censorship? What is the price that you think is worth paying?

KaiserPro 9mo ago

Nice logical fallacies. > As far as I understand there is no nudity generated by grok. There is nudity, and more importantly there is CSAM material being generated. reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/grok/comments/1pijcgq/unlocking_groks_imagine_for_nudes_and_spicy_shit/ https://www.reddit.com/r/grok/comments/1pijcgq/unlocking_gro... > Are bikinis now taboo attire? generating sexualised pictures of kids is verboten. Thats epstien level of illegality. There is no legitiamte need for the public to hold, make or transmit sexualised images of children. Anyone arguing otherwise has a lot of questions to answer

KoolKat23 9mo ago
You're the one making the logical fallacies and reacting emotionally. Read what I have said first please. That is a different grok to the one publishing images and discussed in the article. Your link clearly states they are being moderated in the comments and all comments are discussing adults only. The links comments also imply that these folks are jailbreaking nearly, because of guardrails that exist too. As I say read what I said, please don't put words in my mouth. The GPT models wouldn't know what is sexualised. I said there is a line at some point. Non-sexualized bikinis are sold everywhere, do you not use the internet to buy clothes? Your immediate dismissive reaction indicates you are not giving what I'm saying any thought. This is what puritanical thought often looks like. The discourse is so poisoned people can't stop, look at the facts and think rationally.
- KaiserPro 9mo ago
  > reacting emotionally I don't think there is much emotion in said post. I am making specific assertions. to your point: > Non-sexualized bikinis are sold everywhere Correct! the key logical modifier is Non sexual. Also you'll note that a lot of clothing companies do not show images of children in swimwear. Partly that's down to what I imagine you would term puritanism, but also legal counsel. The definition of a CSAM is loose enough (in some jurisdictions) to cover swimwear, depending on context. That context is challenging. A parent looking for clothes that will fit/suit their child is clearly not sexualised (corner cases exist, as I said context) Someone else who is using if for sexual purposes is not. and because like GPL3 CSAM is infectious, the tariff for both company and end user is rather high for making, storing, transmitting and downloading those images. If someone is convicted of collecting those images, and using them for a sexual purpose, then images that were created that were not-CSAM suddenly become CSAM, and legally toxic to posses. (context does come in here.) > Your link clearly states they are being moderated in the comments Which tells us that there is a lot of work on guardrails right? its a choice by xai to allow users to do this. (mainly the app is hamstrung so that you have to pay for the spicy mode.) Whether its done by an ML model or not is irrelevant. Knowingly allowing CSAM generation and transmission is illegal. if you or I were to host an ML model that allows user to do the same thing, we would be in jail. There is a reason why other companies are not doing this. The law must be applied equally, regardless of wealth, or power. I think that is my main objection to all of this. its clearly CSAM, and anyone other than musk doing this would have been censured by now. All of this justification is because of who it is doing this, rather than what is being done. We can bike shed all we want about is it actually really CSAM, which negates the entire point of this, which is its clearly breaking the law. > The GPT models wouldn't know what is sexualised. ML Classification is really rather good now. Instagram's unsupervised categorisation model is really rather effective at working out context of an image or video (ie differentiation of clothes, and context of those clothes.) > please don't put words in my mouth I have not done this, I am asserting that the bar for justifying this kind of content, which is clearly illegal and easily prevented (ie a picture of a minor and "generate an image of her in sexy clothes") is very high. Now you could argue that I'm implying that you have something to hide. I am actually curious as to your motives for justifying the knowing creation of sexualised images of minors. You've made a weak argument that there are legitimate purposes. You then argue that its a slippery slope. Is your fear that this brings justifies an age gated internet? censorship? What is the price that you think is worth paying?