5 ms·
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 involve
by _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 agoHow does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
- mikeyouse 8mo agoThe 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 agoYes, 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.
- Altern4tiveAcc 8mo agoSo, if someone hosts an image editor as web app, are they liable if someone uses that editor to create CP? I honestly don't follow it. People creating nudes of others and using the Internet to distribute it can be sued for defamation, sure. I don't think the people hosting the service should be liable themselves, just like people hosting Tor nodes shouldn't be liable by what users of the Tor Network do.
- jazzyjackson 8mo agoThis might be an unpopular opinion but I always thought we might be better off without Web 2.0 where site owners aren’t held responsible for user content If you’re hosting content, why shouldn’t you be responsible, because your business model is impossible if you’re held to account for what’s happening on your premises? Without safe harbor, people might have to jump through the hoops of buying their own domain name, and hosting content themselves, would that be so bad?
- terminalshort 8mo agoYou know this site would not be possible without those protections, right?
- jazzyjackson 8mo agoOn the contrary HN is one of the most heavily moderated forums out here and serves as a great example of a right-size community where sex trafficking is not happening under the nose of an ambivalent host (Snark aside, in your opinion are there comments on HN that dang would be criminally liable for if it weren't for safe harbor?)
- pdpi 8mo agoWhat about webmail, IM, or any other sort of web-hosted communication? Do you honestly think it would be better if Google were responsible for whatever content gets sent to a gmail address?
- jazzyjackson 8mo agoMessages are a little different than hosting public content but sure, a service provider should know its customers and stop doing business with any child sex traffickers planning parties over email. I would prefer 10,000 service providers to one big one that gets to read all the plaintext communication of the entire planet.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
- _trampeltier 8mo agoBefore a USER did create content. So the user was / is liable. Now a LLM owned by a company does create content. So the company is liable.
- hbs18 8mo agoI'm not trying to make excuses for Grok, but how exactly isn't the user creating the content? Grok doesn't have create images on its own volition, the user is still required to give it some input, therefore "creating" the content.
- luke5441 8mo agoX is making it pretty clear that it is "Grok" posting those images and not the user. It is a separate posting that comes from an official account named "Grok". X has full control over what the official "Grok" account posts. There is no functionality for the users to review and approve "Grok" responses to their tweets.
- _trampeltier 8mo agoUntil now, webserver had just been like a post service. Grok is more like a CNC late.
- mbesto 8mo agoDoes an autonomous car drive the car from point A to point B or does the person who puts in the destination address drive the car?
- numpad0 8mo agoIt's not like the world benefited from safe harbor laws that much. Why don't just amend them so that algorithms that run on server side and platforms that recommend things are not eligible.
- direwolf20 8mo agoIf you are thinking about section 230 it only applies to user–generated content, so not server–side AI or timeline algorithms.
- Altern4tiveAcc 8mo agoSo if a social network tool does the exact same thing, but uses the user's own GPU or NPU to generate the content instead, suddenly it's fine?
- direwolf20 8mo agoIf a user generates child porn on their own and uploads it to a social network, the social network is shielded from liability until they refuse to delete it.
- numpad0 8mo agoChanges who's technically the perp. Offer managed porn generation service -> service provider is responsible for generating porn, like, literally literally
- pjc50 8mo agoNote that is a US law, not a French one. Also, safe harbor doesn't apply because this is published under the @grok handle! It's being published by X under one of their brand names, it's absurd to argue that they're unaware or not consenting to its publication.