6 ms·
This vindicates the pro-AI censorship crowd I guess. It definitely makes it clear what is expected of AI companies. Your users aren't responsible for what they
by miki123211 9mo ago
This vindicates the pro-AI censorship crowd I guess.
It definitely makes it clear what is expected of AI companies. Your users aren't responsible for what they use your model for, you are, so you'd better make sure your model can't ever be used for anything nefarious. If you can't do that without keeping the model closed and verifying everyone's identities... well, that's good for your profits I guess.
- culi 9mo agoIt's not really different from how we treat any other platform that can host CSAM. I guess the main difference is that it's being "made" instead of simply "distributed" here
- toxik 9mo ago[flagged]
- blipvert 9mo agoPro-tip: if you are actively assisting someone in doing illegal things then you are an accomplice.
- krig 9mo agoThose images are generated from a training set, and it is already well known and reported that those training sets contain _real_ CSAM, real violence, real abuse. That "generated" face of a child is based on real images of real children.
- pavlov 9mo agoIndeed, a Stanford study from a few years back showed that the image data sets used by essentially everybody contain CSAM. Everybody else has teams building guardrails to mitigate this fundamental existential horror of these models. Musk fired all the safety people and decided to go all in on “adult” content.
- exodust 9mo agoWhat Stanford study? If you mean the one titled "Generative ML and CSAM", I can't see any mention of your claim in that study. Care to explain? https://fsi.stanford.edu/publication/generative-ml-and-csam-implications-and-mitigations https://fsi.stanford.edu/publication/generative-ml-and-csam-...
- hdgvhicv 9mo ago> Uh, let's distinguish between generated images, however revolting, and actual child sexual abuse. If you want. In many countries the law doesn’t. If you don’t like the law your billion dollar company still has to follow it. At least in theory.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- KaiserPro 9mo ago> let's distinguish between generated images, however revolting, and actual child sexual abuse. Can't because even before GenAI the "oh its generated in photoshop" or "they just look young" excuse was used successfully to allow a lot of people to walk free. the law was tightend in the early 2000s for precisely this reason
- themafia 9mo agoHolding corporations accountable for their profit streams is "censorship?" I wish they'd stop passing models trained on internet conversations and hoarded data as fit for any purpose. The world does not need to boil oceans for hallucinating chat bots at this particular point in history.
- vintermann 9mo ago[flagged]
- direwolf20 9mo agoIt's not about 'hosting a model'
- vintermann 9mo agoWhat do you mean? What is it about then?
- direwolf20 9mo agoPublishing child porn
- themafia 9mo agoWhat would be censorship is if those same companies then brigaded forums and interfered with conversations and votes in an effort to try to hide their greed and criminality. Not that this would _ever_ happen on Hacker News. :|
- Jordan-117 9mo agoI could maybe see this argument if we were talking about raiding Stable Diffusion or Facebook or some other provider of local models. But the content at issue was generated not just by Twitter's AI model, but on their servers, integrated directly into their UI and hosted publicly on their platform. That makes them much more clearly culpable -- they're not just enabling this shit, they're creating it themselves on demand (and posting it directly to victims' public profiles).
- disgruntledphd2 9mo agoAnd importantly, this is clearly published by Grok, rather than the user, so in this case (obviously this isn't the US) but if it was I'm not sure Section 230 would apply.
- popalchemist 9mo agoIt's a bit of a leap to say that the model must be censored. SD and all the open image gen models are capable of all kinds of things, but nobody has gone after the open model trainers. They have gone after the companies making profits from providing services.
- vintermann 9mo agoSo far, yes, but as far as I can tell their case against the AI giants aren't based on it being for-profit services in any way.
- popalchemist 9mo agoThe for-profit part may or may not be a qualifier, but the architecture of a centralized service means they automatically become the scene of the crime -- either dissemination or storing of illegal material. Whereas if Stability creates a model, and others use their model locally, the relationship of Stability to the crime is ad-hoc. They aren't an accessory.
- KaiserPro 9mo agoAgain its all about reasonable. Firstly does the open model explicitly/tacitly allow CSAM generation? Secondly, when the trainers are made aware of the problem, do they ignore it or attempt to put in place protections? Thirdly, do they pull in data that is likely to allow that kind of content to be generated? Fourthly, when they are told that this is happening, do they pull the model? Fithly, do they charge for access/host the service and allow users to generate said content on their own servers?
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- PeterStuer 9mo ago[flagged]
- mnewme 9mo agoThat is not the same. Correct comparison would be: You provide a photo studio with an adjacent art gallery and allow people to shoot CSAM content there and then exhibit their work.
- PeterStuer 9mo agoNot knowing any better, and not having seen any of the alleged images, my default guess would be they used the exact same CSAM filtering pipeline already in place on X regardless of the origin of the submitted images.
- mnewme 9mo agoThey obviously didn’t really implement anything as you can find that content or involuntary nudes of other people, which is also an invasion of privacy, super easily
- direwolf20 9mo agoAnd the sign out front says "X-Ray camera photographs anyone naked — no age limits!" And the camera is pointing out the window so you can use it on strangers walking by. There is a point in law where you make something so easy to misuse that you become liable for the misuse. In the USA they have "attractive nuisance", like building a kid's playground on top of a pit of snakes. That's so obviously a dumb idea that you become liable for the snake–bitten kids — you can't save yourself by arguing that you didn't give the kids permission to use the playground, that it's on private property, that the kids should have seen the snakes, or that it's legal to own snakes. No, you set up a situation where people were obviously going to get hurt and you become liable for the hurt.
- brnt 9mo agoIf the camera reliably inserts racist filters and the ballpen would add hurtful words to whatever you write, indeed, let them up their legal insurance.
- mnewme 9mo agoThis is the wrong take. Yes they could have an uncensored model, but then they would need proper moderation and delete this kind of content instantly or ban users that produce it. Or don’t allow it in the first place. It doesn’t matter how CSAM is produced, the only thing that matters is that is on the platform. I am flabbergasted people even defend this
- direwolf20 9mo agoIt matters whether they attempt to block it or encourage it. Musk encouraged it, until legal pressure hit, then moved it behind a paywall so it's harder to see evidence.
- mnewme 9mo agoExactly!
- madeofpalk 9mo agoLet’s take a step back and remove AI generation from the conversation for a moment. Did X do enough to prevent its website being used to distribute illegal content - consensual sexual material of both adults and children? Now reintroduce AI generation, where X plays a more active role in facilitating the creation of that illegal content.
- muyuu 9mo ago[flagged]
- KaiserPro 9mo agoThe law is concrete on this. In the UK, you must take "reasonable" steps to remove illegal content. This normally means some basic detection (ie fingerprinting which is widely used from a collaborative database) or if a user is consistently uploading said stuff, banning them. Allowing a service that you run to continue to generate said illegal content, even after you publicly admit that you know its wrong, is not reasonable.
- muyuu 9mo agothat doesn't sound concrete to me, at all
- disgruntledphd2 9mo agoIt's about as concrete as one gets in the UK/US/Anglosphere law tradition.
- muyuu 9mo agoif you can be sued for billions because some overbearing body, with a very different ideology to yours, can deem your moderation/censorship rules to be "unreasonable" then what you do is err on the side of caution and allow nearly nothing this is not compatible with that line of business - perhaps one of the reasons nothing is done in Europe these days
- gordian-mind 9mo agoThis is not about AI but about censorship of a nonaligned social network. It's been a developing current in EU. They have basically been foaming at the mouth at the platform since it got bought.
- direwolf20 9mo agoIt's about a guy who thinks posting child porn on twitter is hilarious and that guy happens to own twitter. If it was about blocking the social media they'd just block it, like they did with Russia Today, CUII-Liste Lina, or Pavel Durov.
- mordnis 9mo agoHe said that child pornography is funny? Do you have a link by any chance?
- gordian-mind 9mo agoAlthough I despise it, I respect your right to lie through your teeths.
- wtcactus 9mo ago[flagged]
- direwolf20 9mo agoYou don't see any difference between Google Search and ChatGPT?
- direwolf20 9mo agoIt's not because it could generate CSAM. It's because when they found out it could generate CSAM, they didn't try to prevent that, they advertised it. Actual knowledge is a required compenent of many crimes.
- bhelkey 9mo ago> when they found out it could generate CSAM, they didn't try to prevent that, they advertised it. Twitter publicly advertised it can create CSAM? I have been off twitter for several years and I am open to being wrong here but that sounds unlikely.
- code_for_monkey 9mo agoI think having guardrails on your AI to not be able to produce this stuff is good actually. Also, Elon encourages this behavior socially through his posts so yeah he should face consequences.
- keepamovin 9mo agoThere's no crowds or sides. It's all manufactured divisions because some of those who can't or don't want to create the technology are determined to control it. So they'll get you mad about what they need to, to justify actions that increase their control. It's the same playbook that is used again and again. For war, civil liberties crackdowns, lockdowns, COVID, etc, etc: 0) I want (1); start playbook: A) Something bad is here, B) You need to feel X + Panic about it, C) We are solving it via (1). Because you reacted at B, you will support C. Problem, reaction, solution. Gives the playmakers the (1) they want. We all know this is going on. But I guess we like knowing someone is pulling the strings. We like being led and maybe even manipulated because perhaps in the familiar system (which yields the undeniable goods of our current way of life), there is safety and stability? How else to explain. Maybe the need to be entertained with drama is a hackable side effect of stable societies populated by people who evolved as warriors, hunters and survivors.
- commandlinefan 9mo agoPretty disturbing to me how many people _on here_ are cheering for this. I thought that at least here of all places, there might be some nuanced discussion on "ok, I see why people are emotional about this topic in particular, but it's worth stepping back and putting emotions aside for a minute to see if this is actually reasonable overall..." but besides your comment, I'm not seeing much of that.
- troyvit 9mo agoThere's pro-AI censorship and then there's pro-social media censorship. It was the X offices that were raided. X is a social media company. They would have been raided whether it was AI that created the CSAM or a bunch of X contractors generating it mechanical-turk style. I think the HN crowd is more nuanced than you're giving them credit for: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=chat+control https://hn.algolia.com/?q=chat+control