4 ms·

In your hypothetical scenario, why aren't the school kids making and distributing fake nudes of his daughter be the ones getting in trouble? Have we a outsourc

In your hypothetical scenario, why aren't the school kids making and distributing fake nudes of his daughter be the ones getting in trouble? Have we a outsourced all accountability for the crimes of humans to AI now?

anonymous908213 9mo ago
Punishing kids after the fact does not stop the damage from occurring. Nothing can stop the damage that has already occurred, but if you stop the source of the nudes, you can stop future damage from occurring to even more girls.
- joe_mamba 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - anonymous908213 9mo ago
    I'm sorry, did the article or anyone in this subthread suggest banning AI? That seems like quite a non-sequitur. I'm pretty sure the idea is to put a content filter on an online platform for one very specific kind of already-illegal content (modified nude images of real people, especially children), which is a far cry from a ban. Nothing can stop local diffusion or Photoshop, of course, but the hardware and technical barriers are so much higher that curtailing Grok would probably cut off 99% or more of the problem material. I suppose you'll tell me if any solution is not 100% effective we should do nothing and embrace anarchy? Edit for the addition of the line about bullying: "Bullying has always happened, therefore we should allow new forms of even worse bullying to flourish freely, even though I readily acknowledge that it can lead to victims committing suicide" is a bizarre and self-contradictory take. I don't know what point you think you're making.
  - wizzwizz4 9mo ago
    Child sexual abuse material is literally in the training sets. Saying "banning AI" as though it's all the same thing, and all morally-neutral, is disingenuous. (Yes, a system with both nudity and children in its dataset might still be able to produce such images – and there are important discussions to be had about that – but giving xAI the benefit of equivocation here is an act of malice.)
  - owebmaster 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - joe_mamba 9mo ago
      I'm not defending CP, WTF is wrong with you? You're just hallucinating/making stuff up in bad faith.
    - direwolf20 9mo ago
      Y Combinator supports doing anything that makes money
  - expedition32 9mo ago
    Nobody wants to ban AI they want to regulate it. Which is what we do with all new technology. To paraphrase "your tech bros were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they never considered if they should"
ImPleadThe5th 9mo ago
It's not hypothetical. And in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. Those boys absolutely should be held accountable. But I also don't think that Grok should be able to quickly and easily generate fake revenge porn for minors. [1] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/girl-expelled-after-confronting-classmates-over-aimade-nude-images/6434608/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/girl-...
- joe_mamba 9mo ago
  >And in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. And the AI is at fault for this sentencing, not the school authorities/prosecutors/judges dishing justice? WTF. How is this an AI problem and not a legal system problem?
  - anonymous908213 9mo ago
    Have you considered that it is possible for two things to be problems?
    - joe_mamba 9mo ago
      No, because the comment is in bad faith, it just introduced an unrelated issue (poor sentencing from authorities) as an argument for the initial issue we are discussing (AI nudes), derailing the conversation, and then using the new issue they themselves introduced to legitimize their poor argument when one has nothing to do with the other and both can be good/bad independently of each other. I don't accept this as good faith argumentation nor does HN rules.
      - Phelinofist 9mo ago
        You are the only one commenting in bad faith, by refusing to understand/acknowledging that the people using Grok to create such pictures AND Grok are both part of the issue. It should not be possible to create nudes of minors via Grok. Full stop.
stuaxo 9mo ago
They may well get in trouble, but in that takes time, in the meantime photos will have been seen by most kids in school + you might get a year of bullying. Education might be so disrupted you have to change schools.
saubeidl 9mo ago
This is accountability for the crimes of humans. The crime is creating a system that lets schoolboys create fake nudes of other minors. You don't just get to build a CSAM-generator and then be like "well I never intended for it to be used...". The humans running a company are liable for the product that their company builds, easy as that.
- joe_mamba 9mo ago
  >The crime is creating a system that lets schoolboys create fake nudes of other minors. So like Photoshop? Do you want to raid Adobe's HQ?
  - saubeidl 9mo ago
    Does Photoshop have a "let me jerk off to this minor" button?
    - joe_mamba 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - saubeidl 9mo ago
        I don't want to. But I don't want others to be easily able to either. In your scenario, yes, you are guilty as well. But so is the one that actually did the deed, i.e. Grok in this case. You're arguing my point for me. Just because you do something for someone else doesn't mean you're absolved of responsibility. You can't build a tool with a "create child porn" button and then expect not to get into trouble for helping people make child porn.
verdverm 9mo ago
children do dumb things and make mistakes all the time, teenagers push the boundaries as far as they can (and they have a role model in the white house now) We fault and "fine" companies for providing products that harm society all the time Are you not going to consider the company providing a CSAM machine to be the major one at fault here?
Cthulhu_ 9mo ago
But they are getting in trouble. However, for every one that gets in trouble, there's more that don't get discovered, or that don't get in trouble for it. Besides, getting in trouble for something is already after the fact, the damage has been done. If it can't be done in the first place, or the barrier is too high for most, then the damage would have been prevented. But this is a recurring dilemma.
BigTTYGothGF 9mo ago
> why aren't the school kids making and distributing fake nudes of his daughter be the ones getting in trouble? "Boys will be boys", and so on. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture)

anonymous908213 9mo ago

Punishing kids after the fact does not stop the damage from occurring. Nothing can stop the damage that has already occurred, but if you stop the source of the nudes, you can stop future damage from occurring to even more girls.

joe_mamba 9mo ago
[flagged]
- anonymous908213 9mo ago
  I'm sorry, did the article or anyone in this subthread suggest banning AI? That seems like quite a non-sequitur. I'm pretty sure the idea is to put a content filter on an online platform for one very specific kind of already-illegal content (modified nude images of real people, especially children), which is a far cry from a ban. Nothing can stop local diffusion or Photoshop, of course, but the hardware and technical barriers are so much higher that curtailing Grok would probably cut off 99% or more of the problem material. I suppose you'll tell me if any solution is not 100% effective we should do nothing and embrace anarchy? Edit for the addition of the line about bullying: "Bullying has always happened, therefore we should allow new forms of even worse bullying to flourish freely, even though I readily acknowledge that it can lead to victims committing suicide" is a bizarre and self-contradictory take. I don't know what point you think you're making.
- wizzwizz4 9mo ago
  Child sexual abuse material is literally in the training sets. Saying "banning AI" as though it's all the same thing, and all morally-neutral, is disingenuous. (Yes, a system with both nudity and children in its dataset might still be able to produce such images – and there are important discussions to be had about that – but giving xAI the benefit of equivocation here is an act of malice.)
- owebmaster 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - joe_mamba 9mo ago
    I'm not defending CP, WTF is wrong with you? You're just hallucinating/making stuff up in bad faith.
  - direwolf20 9mo ago
    Y Combinator supports doing anything that makes money
- expedition32 9mo ago
  Nobody wants to ban AI they want to regulate it. Which is what we do with all new technology. To paraphrase "your tech bros were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they never considered if they should"

ImPleadThe5th 9mo ago

It's not hypothetical. And in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. Those boys absolutely should be held accountable. But I also don't think that Grok should be able to quickly and easily generate fake revenge porn for minors. [1] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/girl-expelled-after-confronting-classmates-over-aimade-nude-images/6434608/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/girl-...

joe_mamba 9mo ago
>And in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. And the AI is at fault for this sentencing, not the school authorities/prosecutors/judges dishing justice? WTF. How is this an AI problem and not a legal system problem?
- anonymous908213 9mo ago
  Have you considered that it is possible for two things to be problems?
  - joe_mamba 9mo ago
    No, because the comment is in bad faith, it just introduced an unrelated issue (poor sentencing from authorities) as an argument for the initial issue we are discussing (AI nudes), derailing the conversation, and then using the new issue they themselves introduced to legitimize their poor argument when one has nothing to do with the other and both can be good/bad independently of each other. I don't accept this as good faith argumentation nor does HN rules.
    - Phelinofist 9mo ago
      You are the only one commenting in bad faith, by refusing to understand/acknowledging that the people using Grok to create such pictures AND Grok are both part of the issue. It should not be possible to create nudes of minors via Grok. Full stop.

stuaxo 9mo ago

They may well get in trouble, but in that takes time, in the meantime photos will have been seen by most kids in school + you might get a year of bullying. Education might be so disrupted you have to change schools.

saubeidl 9mo ago

This is accountability for the crimes of humans. The crime is creating a system that lets schoolboys create fake nudes of other minors. You don't just get to build a CSAM-generator and then be like "well I never intended for it to be used...". The humans running a company are liable for the product that their company builds, easy as that.

joe_mamba 9mo ago
>The crime is creating a system that lets schoolboys create fake nudes of other minors. So like Photoshop? Do you want to raid Adobe's HQ?
- saubeidl 9mo ago
  Does Photoshop have a "let me jerk off to this minor" button?
  - joe_mamba 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - saubeidl 9mo ago
      I don't want to. But I don't want others to be easily able to either. In your scenario, yes, you are guilty as well. But so is the one that actually did the deed, i.e. Grok in this case. You're arguing my point for me. Just because you do something for someone else doesn't mean you're absolved of responsibility. You can't build a tool with a "create child porn" button and then expect not to get into trouble for helping people make child porn.

verdverm 9mo ago

children do dumb things and make mistakes all the time, teenagers push the boundaries as far as they can (and they have a role model in the white house now) We fault and "fine" companies for providing products that harm society all the time Are you not going to consider the company providing a CSAM machine to be the major one at fault here?

Cthulhu_ 9mo ago

But they are getting in trouble. However, for every one that gets in trouble, there's more that don't get discovered, or that don't get in trouble for it. Besides, getting in trouble for something is already after the fact, the damage has been done. If it can't be done in the first place, or the barrier is too high for most, then the damage would have been prevented. But this is a recurring dilemma.

BigTTYGothGF 9mo ago

> why aren't the school kids making and distributing fake nudes of his daughter be the ones getting in trouble? "Boys will be boys", and so on. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture)