6 ms·

how is it different? i don't get it.

nkrisc 10mo ago
If curl is used by hackers in illegal activity, culpability falls on the hackers, not the maintainers of curl. If I ask the maintainers of curl to hack something and they do it, then they are culpable (and possibly me as well). Using Photoshop to do something doesn’t make Adobe complicit because Adobe isn’t involved in what you’re using Photoshop for. I suppose they could involve themselves, if you’d prefer that.
- simianwords 10mo ago
  so why is the culpability on grok?
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - immibis 10mo ago
    Because Grok posts child porn, which is illegal. Section 230 doesn't apply, since the child porn is clearly posted by Grok.
    - simianwords 10mo ago
      where did grok post child porn?
      - immibis 10mo ago
        X, formerly Twitter.
inkysigma 10mo ago
It's the frictionless aspect of it. It requires basically no user effort to do some serious harassment. I would say there's some spectrum of effort that impacts who is liable along with a cost/benefit analysis of some safe guards. If users were required to give paragraph long jailbreaks to achieve this and xAI had implemented ML filters, then I think there could be a more reasonable case that xAI wasn't being completely negligent here. Instead, it looks like almost no effort was put into restricting Grok from doing something ridiculous. The cost here is restricting AI image generation which isn't necessarily that much of a burden on society. It is difficult to put similar safeguards into Photoshop and the difficulty of doing the same in Photoshop is much higher.
- simianwords 10mo ago
  i think you have a point but consider this hypothetical situation. you are in 1500's before the printing press was invented. surely the printing press can also reduce the friction to distribute unethical stuff like CP. what is the appropriate thing to do here to ensure justice? penalise the authors? penalise the distributors? penalise the factory? penalise the technology itself?
  - hypeatei 10mo ago
    Photocopiers are mandated by law to refuse copying currency. Would you say that's a restriction of your free speech or too burdensome on the technology itself?
latexr 10mo ago
You don’t understand the difference between typing “draw a giraffe in a tuxedo in the style of MC Escher” into a text box and getting an image in a few seconds, versus the skill and time necessary to do it in an image manipulation program? You don’t understand how scale and accessibility matter? That having easy cheap access to something makes it so there is more of it? You don’t understand that because any talentless hack can generate child and revenge porn on a whim, they will do it instead of having time to cool off and think about their actions?
- simianwords 10mo ago
  yes but the onus is on the person calling grok and not grok.
  - latexr 10mo ago
    So, is it that you don’t understand how the two differ (which is what you originally claimed), or that you disagree about who is responsible (which the person you replied to hasn’t specified)? You made one specific question, but then responded with something unrelated to the three people (so far) who have replied.
  - nickthegreek 10mo ago
    why do you think that?
dpark 10mo ago
You could drive your car erratically and cause accidents, and it would be your fault. The fact that Honda or whoever made your car is irrelevant. Clearly you as the driver are solely responsible for your negligence in this case. On the other hand, if you bought a car that had a “Mad Max” self driving mode that drives erratically and causes accidents, yes, you are still responsible as the driver for putting your car into “Mad Max” mode. But the manufacturer of the car is also responsible for negligence in creating this dangerous mode that need not exist. There is a meaningful distinction between a tool that can be used for illegal purposes and a tool that is created specifically to enable or encourage illegal purposes.

nkrisc 10mo ago

If curl is used by hackers in illegal activity, culpability falls on the hackers, not the maintainers of curl. If I ask the maintainers of curl to hack something and they do it, then they are culpable (and possibly me as well). Using Photoshop to do something doesn’t make Adobe complicit because Adobe isn’t involved in what you’re using Photoshop for. I suppose they could involve themselves, if you’d prefer that.

simianwords 10mo ago
so why is the culpability on grok?
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- immibis 10mo ago
  Because Grok posts child porn, which is illegal. Section 230 doesn't apply, since the child porn is clearly posted by Grok.
  - simianwords 10mo ago
    where did grok post child porn?
    - immibis 10mo ago
      X, formerly Twitter.

inkysigma 10mo ago

It's the frictionless aspect of it. It requires basically no user effort to do some serious harassment. I would say there's some spectrum of effort that impacts who is liable along with a cost/benefit analysis of some safe guards. If users were required to give paragraph long jailbreaks to achieve this and xAI had implemented ML filters, then I think there could be a more reasonable case that xAI wasn't being completely negligent here. Instead, it looks like almost no effort was put into restricting Grok from doing something ridiculous. The cost here is restricting AI image generation which isn't necessarily that much of a burden on society. It is difficult to put similar safeguards into Photoshop and the difficulty of doing the same in Photoshop is much higher.

simianwords 10mo ago
i think you have a point but consider this hypothetical situation. you are in 1500's before the printing press was invented. surely the printing press can also reduce the friction to distribute unethical stuff like CP. what is the appropriate thing to do here to ensure justice? penalise the authors? penalise the distributors? penalise the factory? penalise the technology itself?
- hypeatei 10mo ago
  Photocopiers are mandated by law to refuse copying currency. Would you say that's a restriction of your free speech or too burdensome on the technology itself?

latexr 10mo ago

You don’t understand the difference between typing “draw a giraffe in a tuxedo in the style of MC Escher” into a text box and getting an image in a few seconds, versus the skill and time necessary to do it in an image manipulation program? You don’t understand how scale and accessibility matter? That having easy cheap access to something makes it so there is more of it? You don’t understand that because any talentless hack can generate child and revenge porn on a whim, they will do it instead of having time to cool off and think about their actions?

simianwords 10mo ago
yes but the onus is on the person calling grok and not grok.
- latexr 10mo ago
  So, is it that you don’t understand how the two differ (which is what you originally claimed), or that you disagree about who is responsible (which the person you replied to hasn’t specified)? You made one specific question, but then responded with something unrelated to the three people (so far) who have replied.
- nickthegreek 10mo ago
  why do you think that?

dpark 10mo ago

You could drive your car erratically and cause accidents, and it would be your fault. The fact that Honda or whoever made your car is irrelevant. Clearly you as the driver are solely responsible for your negligence in this case. On the other hand, if you bought a car that had a “Mad Max” self driving mode that drives erratically and causes accidents, yes, you are still responsible as the driver for putting your car into “Mad Max” mode. But the manufacturer of the car is also responsible for negligence in creating this dangerous mode that need not exist. There is a meaningful distinction between a tool that can be used for illegal purposes and a tool that is created specifically to enable or encourage illegal purposes.