5 ms·

> This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers. The company made and released a tool wi

> This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers. The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography.

gulfofamerica 8mo ago
[dead]
ChrisGreenHeur 8mo ago
[flagged]
- KaiserPro 8mo ago
  Not really, they put a shit ton of effort in to make sure you can't create any kind of nude/suggestive pictures of anyone. I imagine they have strict controls on making images of children, but I don't feel inclined to find out.
  - ChrisGreenHeur 8mo ago
    you understand that the brush tool in photoshop exists?
trhway 8mo ago
Internet routers, network cards, the computers, OS and various application software have no guardrails and is used for all the nefarious things. Why those companies aren't raided?
- trothamel 8mo ago
  Don't forget polaroid in that.
- sirnicolaz 8mo ago
  This is like comparing the danger of a machine gun to that of a block of lead.
  - trhway 8mo ago
    May be. We do have codified in law definition of machine gun which clearly separates it from a block of lead. What codified in law definitions are used here to separate photoshop from Grok in the context of those deepfakes and CSAM? Without such clear legal definitions going after Grok while not going after photoshop is just an act of political pressure.
    - bootsmann 8mo ago
      Why do you think France doesn’t have such laws that delineate this legal definition? What you’re implying here is that Musk should be immune from any prosecution simply because he is right wing, which…
    - moolcool 8mo ago
      Take a step back and look at what you’re defending, man.
      - trhway 8mo ago
        i don't understand why you're defending CSAM creation in photoshop.
- protocolture 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- bluescrn 8mo ago
  They don’t provide a large platform for political speech. This isn’t about AI or CSAM (Have we seen any other AI companies raided by governments for enabling creation of deepfakes, dangerous misinformation, illegal images, or for flagrant industrial-scale copyright infringement?)
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    No because most of those things aren't illegal and most of those companies have guard rails and because a prosecution requires a much higher standard of evidence than internet shitposting, and only X was stupid enough to make their illegal activity obvious.
  - moorebob 8mo ago
    Deepfakes have been around long before X (and other chatbots) allowed undressing of real people. The difference is that the entire political Left hate and fear Elon and are desperately trying to destroy him.
pdpi 8mo ago
I'm of two minds about this. One the one hand, it seems "obvious" that Grok should somehow be legally required to have guardrails stopping it from producing kiddie porn. On the other hand, it also seems "obvious" that laws forcing 3D printers to detect and block attempts to print firearms are patently bullshit. The thing is, I'm not sure how I can reconcile those two seemingly-obvious statements in a principled manner.
- _trampeltier 8mo ago
  It is very different. It is YOUR 3d printer, no one else is involved. You might print a knife and kill somebody with it, you go to jail, not third party involved. If you use a service like Grok, then you use somebody elses computer / things. X is the owner from computer that produced CP. So of course X is at least also a bit liable for producing CP.
  - pdpi 8mo ago
    How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
    - mikeyouse 8mo ago
      The safe harbor provisions largely protect X from the content that the users post (within reason). Suddenly Grok/X were actually producing the objectionable content. Users were making gross requests and then an LLM owned by X, using X servers and X code would generate the illegal material and then post it to the website. The entity responsible is no longer done user but instead the company itself.
      - luke5441 8mo ago
        Yes, and that was a very stupid product decision. They could have put the image generation into the post editor, shifting responsibility to the users. I'd guess Elon is responsible for that product decision.
      - 8mo ago
cubefox 8mo ago
> The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography. Do you have any evidence for that? As far as I can tell, this is false. The only thing I saw was Grok changing photos of adults into them wearing bikinis, which is far less bad.
- scott_w 8mo ago
  Did you miss the numerous news reports? Example: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbot-grok-used-to-create-child-sexual-abuse-imagery-watchdog-says https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbo... For obvious reasons, decent people are not about to go out and try to general child sexual abuse material to prove a point to you, if that’s what you’re asking for.
  - cubefox 8mo ago
    First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. They always try hard to make everything about him sound as negative as possible. Second, last time I tried, Grok even refused to create pictures of naked adults. I just tried again and this is still the case: https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab The claim that they released a tool with "seemingly no guardrailes" is therefore clearly false. I think what instead has happened here is that some people found a hack to circumvent some of those guardrails via something like a jailbreak.
    - xoac 8mo ago
      [flagged]
    - scott_w 8mo ago
      For more evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-for-grok-generated-csam-no-fixes-announced/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-f... Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/ofcom-launches-investigation-into-x-over-grok-sexualised-imagery https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c... This is because of government pressure (see Ofcom link). I’d say you’re making yourself look foolish but you seem happy to defend nonces so I’ll not waste my time.
ljsprague 8mo ago
No other "AI" companies released tools that could do the same?
- hackinthebochs 8mo ago
  In fact, Gemini could bikinify any image just like Grok. Google added guardrails after all the backlash Grok received.
  - mekdoonggi 8mo ago
    And they should face consequences for that, somewhat mitigated by their good faith response.

gulfofamerica 8mo ago

[dead]

ChrisGreenHeur 8mo ago

[flagged]

KaiserPro 8mo ago
Not really, they put a shit ton of effort in to make sure you can't create any kind of nude/suggestive pictures of anyone. I imagine they have strict controls on making images of children, but I don't feel inclined to find out.
- ChrisGreenHeur 8mo ago
  you understand that the brush tool in photoshop exists?

trhway 8mo ago

Internet routers, network cards, the computers, OS and various application software have no guardrails and is used for all the nefarious things. Why those companies aren't raided?

trothamel 8mo ago
Don't forget polaroid in that.
sirnicolaz 8mo ago
This is like comparing the danger of a machine gun to that of a block of lead.
- trhway 8mo ago
  May be. We do have codified in law definition of machine gun which clearly separates it from a block of lead. What codified in law definitions are used here to separate photoshop from Grok in the context of those deepfakes and CSAM? Without such clear legal definitions going after Grok while not going after photoshop is just an act of political pressure.
  - bootsmann 8mo ago
    Why do you think France doesn’t have such laws that delineate this legal definition? What you’re implying here is that Musk should be immune from any prosecution simply because he is right wing, which…
  - moolcool 8mo ago
    Take a step back and look at what you’re defending, man.
    - trhway 8mo ago
      i don't understand why you're defending CSAM creation in photoshop.
protocolture 8mo ago
[flagged]
bluescrn 8mo ago
They don’t provide a large platform for political speech. This isn’t about AI or CSAM (Have we seen any other AI companies raided by governments for enabling creation of deepfakes, dangerous misinformation, illegal images, or for flagrant industrial-scale copyright infringement?)
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  No because most of those things aren't illegal and most of those companies have guard rails and because a prosecution requires a much higher standard of evidence than internet shitposting, and only X was stupid enough to make their illegal activity obvious.
- moorebob 8mo ago
  Deepfakes have been around long before X (and other chatbots) allowed undressing of real people. The difference is that the entire political Left hate and fear Elon and are desperately trying to destroy him.

pdpi 8mo ago

I'm of two minds about this. One the one hand, it seems "obvious" that Grok should somehow be legally required to have guardrails stopping it from producing kiddie porn. On the other hand, it also seems "obvious" that laws forcing 3D printers to detect and block attempts to print firearms are patently bullshit. The thing is, I'm not sure how I can reconcile those two seemingly-obvious statements in a principled manner.

_trampeltier 8mo ago
It is very different. It is YOUR 3d printer, no one else is involved. You might print a knife and kill somebody with it, you go to jail, not third party involved. If you use a service like Grok, then you use somebody elses computer / things. X is the owner from computer that produced CP. So of course X is at least also a bit liable for producing CP.
- pdpi 8mo ago
  How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
  - mikeyouse 8mo ago
    The safe harbor provisions largely protect X from the content that the users post (within reason). Suddenly Grok/X were actually producing the objectionable content. Users were making gross requests and then an LLM owned by X, using X servers and X code would generate the illegal material and then post it to the website. The entity responsible is no longer done user but instead the company itself.
    - luke5441 8mo ago
      Yes, and that was a very stupid product decision. They could have put the image generation into the post editor, shifting responsibility to the users. I'd guess Elon is responsible for that product decision.
    - 8mo ago

cubefox 8mo ago

> The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography. Do you have any evidence for that? As far as I can tell, this is false. The only thing I saw was Grok changing photos of adults into them wearing bikinis, which is far less bad.

scott_w 8mo ago
Did you miss the numerous news reports? Example: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbot-grok-used-to-create-child-sexual-abuse-imagery-watchdog-says https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbo... For obvious reasons, decent people are not about to go out and try to general child sexual abuse material to prove a point to you, if that’s what you’re asking for.
- cubefox 8mo ago
  First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. They always try hard to make everything about him sound as negative as possible. Second, last time I tried, Grok even refused to create pictures of naked adults. I just tried again and this is still the case: https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab The claim that they released a tool with "seemingly no guardrailes" is therefore clearly false. I think what instead has happened here is that some people found a hack to circumvent some of those guardrails via something like a jailbreak.
  - xoac 8mo ago
    [flagged]
  - scott_w 8mo ago
    For more evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-for-grok-generated-csam-no-fixes-announced/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-f... Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/ofcom-launches-investigation-into-x-over-grok-sexualised-imagery https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c... This is because of government pressure (see Ofcom link). I’d say you’re making yourself look foolish but you seem happy to defend nonces so I’ll not waste my time.

ljsprague 8mo ago

No other "AI" companies released tools that could do the same?

hackinthebochs 8mo ago
In fact, Gemini could bikinify any image just like Grok. Google added guardrails after all the backlash Grok received.
- mekdoonggi 8mo ago
  And they should face consequences for that, somewhat mitigated by their good faith response.