4 ms·

X needs to be held liable in a criminal court for this. They should not be allowed to hide behind an AI and claim they are not at fault or whatever. They provid

X needs to be held liable in a criminal court for this. They should not be allowed to hide behind an AI and claim they are not at fault or whatever. They provide a service where users can request images, and the service generated illegal imagery. I will die on the hill that engineers and execs should be heavily fined or going to jail for this.

devilsdata 9mo ago
Hear, hear. There should always be steep consequences for taking advantage of the vulnerable.
ares623 9mo ago
I know Musk will be untouchable but if X has offices around the world can the people there be held accountable?
- ronsor 9mo ago
  X will simply close those offices, as they've done in the past.
  - thedevilslawyer 9mo ago
    This is not a bad outcome.
TrainedMonkey 9mo ago
While we are at it, let's also get all the weapon manufacturers. How dare they hide behind "we are just making a tool" and "we are not responsible for what our users do". And don't get me started on people using cars to cause harm to others, why is nobody going after big auto?
- arcatech 9mo ago
  Flattening the discussion to “everything is actually exactly the same” isn’t helpful. This situation is not the same as a person driving a vehicle.
- llmslave2 9mo ago
  No, because Grok or ChatGPT etc are not tools, they are services. It doesn't matter if Grok uses an LLM or a bunch of people using Photoshop, if they are outputting illegal content the consequences should be the same. People don't go after big auto because they sell cars that other people drive. If they suddenly started offering a service where they would drive people around in their cars, and they started crashing into other people, of course they would be responsible for that.
- janice1999 9mo ago
  What an unserious response. Gun manufacturer accountability (or lack thereof) is a complex topic and one with ongoing lawsuits and evolving legal arguments. (In the USA see the Bush-era NRA-backed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 and recent Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Mexico arguments). Personally if a gun manufacturer markets a gun with the primary feature being finger print resistant (yes, that's real) and being easy to carry concealed, I think lawmakers should investigate. Likewise f someone makes a big CSAM generator button and puts it in front of millions of users, it also deserves legal attention.
  - TrainedMonkey 9mo ago
    It was an unserious response to an absolutist statement. I pointing out where such absolutism would lead if applied to other areas. I don't think fingerprint scanner on guns will be effective as it tracks ownership and not legality of usage. However, a number of modern vehicles do have capabilities to perform autonomous actions, including overriding user input.
    - llmslave2 9mo ago
      It's not an absolutist statement and it doesn't lead to any of the insane conclusions you came up with. Holding the people running a model liable for what it generates has nothing to do with making tool makers liable.
  - xigoi 9mo ago
    It’s not a CSAM generation button, it’s a general content generation button that someone used to generate CSAM, and it’s that someone who is responsible for it.
s5300 9mo ago
[dead]
dmitrygr 9mo ago
> service generated illegal imagery For my own curiosity, could you please elaborate which law was broken? And if you do find one, elaborate how is it not unconstitutional, given that “put X into a bikini” is constitutionally protected speech, and the output fails the Roth test for obscenity and is thus protected just the same. Would not every other law claiming to be relevant be null and void w.r.t. stoping this in this particular case? SCOTUS was quite clear in Roth v. United States. The later Miller case is also of no help, since nowadays appearing publicly in a bikini is considered quite normal and not at all obscene or sexual. I get it. If this happened to a member of my family, I'd be pissed too. But, as logical people is it not our job to NOT simply leap from "I'm very angry" to "It must be illegal", but to be calm and rational.
- labrador 9mo ago
  It's illegal in California.
  - dmitrygr 9mo ago
    > It's illegal in California. 1. What specifically is? Posting twitter comments? Prompting an ML model? Generating images based on existing images? 2. Even if so, states are not allowed to make unconstitutional laws. 1stA covers this, as far as I can tell. Do you read Roth or Miller differently?
    - labrador 9mo ago
      "is posting nudes of women without their consent legal in california" https://www.google.com/search?q=is+posting+nudes+of+women+without+their+consent+legal+in+california https://www.google.com/search?q=is+posting+nudes+of+women+wi...
      - xigoi 9mo ago
        Posting such images is illegal, i.e. it’s the user who has violated the law.

devilsdata 9mo ago

Hear, hear. There should always be steep consequences for taking advantage of the vulnerable.

ares623 9mo ago

I know Musk will be untouchable but if X has offices around the world can the people there be held accountable?

ronsor 9mo ago
X will simply close those offices, as they've done in the past.
- thedevilslawyer 9mo ago
  This is not a bad outcome.

TrainedMonkey 9mo ago

While we are at it, let's also get all the weapon manufacturers. How dare they hide behind "we are just making a tool" and "we are not responsible for what our users do". And don't get me started on people using cars to cause harm to others, why is nobody going after big auto?

arcatech 9mo ago
Flattening the discussion to “everything is actually exactly the same” isn’t helpful. This situation is not the same as a person driving a vehicle.
llmslave2 9mo ago
No, because Grok or ChatGPT etc are not tools, they are services. It doesn't matter if Grok uses an LLM or a bunch of people using Photoshop, if they are outputting illegal content the consequences should be the same. People don't go after big auto because they sell cars that other people drive. If they suddenly started offering a service where they would drive people around in their cars, and they started crashing into other people, of course they would be responsible for that.
janice1999 9mo ago
What an unserious response. Gun manufacturer accountability (or lack thereof) is a complex topic and one with ongoing lawsuits and evolving legal arguments. (In the USA see the Bush-era NRA-backed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 and recent Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Mexico arguments). Personally if a gun manufacturer markets a gun with the primary feature being finger print resistant (yes, that's real) and being easy to carry concealed, I think lawmakers should investigate. Likewise f someone makes a big CSAM generator button and puts it in front of millions of users, it also deserves legal attention.
- TrainedMonkey 9mo ago
  It was an unserious response to an absolutist statement. I pointing out where such absolutism would lead if applied to other areas. I don't think fingerprint scanner on guns will be effective as it tracks ownership and not legality of usage. However, a number of modern vehicles do have capabilities to perform autonomous actions, including overriding user input.
  - llmslave2 9mo ago
    It's not an absolutist statement and it doesn't lead to any of the insane conclusions you came up with. Holding the people running a model liable for what it generates has nothing to do with making tool makers liable.
- xigoi 9mo ago
  It’s not a CSAM generation button, it’s a general content generation button that someone used to generate CSAM, and it’s that someone who is responsible for it.

s5300 9mo ago

[dead]

dmitrygr 9mo ago

> service generated illegal imagery For my own curiosity, could you please elaborate which law was broken? And if you do find one, elaborate how is it not unconstitutional, given that “put X into a bikini” is constitutionally protected speech, and the output fails the Roth test for obscenity and is thus protected just the same. Would not every other law claiming to be relevant be null and void w.r.t. stoping this in this particular case? SCOTUS was quite clear in Roth v. United States. The later Miller case is also of no help, since nowadays appearing publicly in a bikini is considered quite normal and not at all obscene or sexual. I get it. If this happened to a member of my family, I'd be pissed too. But, as logical people is it not our job to NOT simply leap from "I'm very angry" to "It must be illegal", but to be calm and rational.

labrador 9mo ago
It's illegal in California.
- dmitrygr 9mo ago
  > It's illegal in California. 1. What specifically is? Posting twitter comments? Prompting an ML model? Generating images based on existing images? 2. Even if so, states are not allowed to make unconstitutional laws. 1stA covers this, as far as I can tell. Do you read Roth or Miller differently?
  - labrador 9mo ago
    "is posting nudes of women without their consent legal in california" https://www.google.com/search?q=is+posting+nudes+of+women+without+their+consent+legal+in+california https://www.google.com/search?q=is+posting+nudes+of+women+wi...
    - xigoi 9mo ago
      Posting such images is illegal, i.e. it’s the user who has violated the law.