4 ms·
Two of the three examples listed in the article appear to involve real children: > A selfie uploaded by a schoolgirl was undressed by Grok, turning a “before s
by optionalsquid 8mo ago
Two of the three examples listed in the article appear to involve real children:
> A selfie uploaded by a schoolgirl was undressed by Grok, turning a “before school selfie” into an image of her in a bikini. As of January 15th this post was still live on X. ... Four images depicting child actors.
- LorenPechtel 8mo agoSo they don't actually have any CSAM.
- gulfofamerica 8mo ago[dead]
- true_religion 8mo agoCalling nearly naked, non consensual imagery of real children “not CSAM” is a dangerous avenue to follow. For a child, this can easily lead to bullying, substantiate rumors that are otherwise false, or normalize their unwilling participation in sexual activity. I think you may be coming to this view from the approach that this is just the AI using imagination/hallucination so it’s “art”, but a better approach would be to treat it like a real photo taken secretly because absent overt labeling of its AI origins that is exactly how the world will treat it.
- LorenPechtel 8mo agoIt's a child in a bikini. All this pursuit of grey area stuff distracts from pursuit of the real problem.
- true_religion 8mo agoI disagree. If we solve this problem, we’ll also solve the more serious “real” problem. The only distraction comes from people saying this is okay, and those people are bound to always practice a motte and bailey argument style to hide the fact that they are generally okay with CSAM. The same people who defended “creep shots” and “family nudism photos” are now defending GrokAi. Choosing not to counter them, merely allows them to normalize grey areas so they can use them to freely seek association with others with more obscene and obviously illegal content.