3 ms·

> Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated That post doesn't contain such an admission, it instead talks about forbidden promp

by cubefox 9mo ago

> Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated That post doesn't contain such an admission, it instead talks about forbidden prompting. > Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: That article links to this article: https://x.com/Safety/status/2011573102485127562 https://x.com/Safety/status/2011573102485127562 - which contradicts your claim that there were no guardrails before. And as I said, I already tried it a while ago, and Grok also refused to create images of naked adults then.

scott_w 9mo ago
> That post doesn't contain such an admission, it instead talks about forbidden prompting. In response to what? If CSAM is not being generated, why aren't X just saying that? Instead they're saying "please don't do it." > which contradicts your claim that there were no guardrails before. From the linked post: > However content is created or whether users are free or paid subscribers, our Safety team are working around the clock to add additional safeguards Which was posted a full week after the initial story broke and after Ofcom started investigative action. So no, it does not contradict my point which was: > Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: As you quoted. I really can't decide if you're stupid, think I and other readers are stupid, or so dedicated to defending paedophilia that you'll just tell flat lies to everyone reading your comment.
- cubefox 9mo ago
  Leave your accusations for yourself. Grok already didn't generate naked pictures of adults months ago when I tested it for the first time. Clearly the "additional safeguards" are meant to protect the system against any jailbreaks.
  - scott_w 9mo ago
    Just to be clear, I'm to ignore: * Internet Watch Foundation * The BBC * The Guardian * X themselves * Ofcom And believe the word of an anonymous internet account who claims to have tried to undress women using Grok for "research."

by cubefox 9mo ago

scott_w 9mo ago

> That post doesn't contain such an admission, it instead talks about forbidden prompting. In response to what? If CSAM is not being generated, why aren't X just saying that? Instead they're saying "please don't do it." > which contradicts your claim that there were no guardrails before. From the linked post: > However content is created or whether users are free or paid subscribers, our Safety team are working around the clock to add additional safeguards Which was posted a full week after the initial story broke and after Ofcom started investigative action. So no, it does not contradict my point which was: > Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: As you quoted. I really can't decide if you're stupid, think I and other readers are stupid, or so dedicated to defending paedophilia that you'll just tell flat lies to everyone reading your comment.

cubefox 9mo ago
Leave your accusations for yourself. Grok already didn't generate naked pictures of adults months ago when I tested it for the first time. Clearly the "additional safeguards" are meant to protect the system against any jailbreaks.
- scott_w 9mo ago
  Just to be clear, I'm to ignore: * Internet Watch Foundation * The BBC * The Guardian * X themselves * Ofcom And believe the word of an anonymous internet account who claims to have tried to undress women using Grok for "research."