3 ms·

I didn’t say block all illegitimate uses, though. We’re talking very specifically about disabling the production of CSAM. Which is something Grok seems to be ab

by afavour 3mo ago

I didn’t say block all illegitimate uses, though. We’re talking very specifically about disabling the production of CSAM. Which is something Grok seems to be able to do now! So I’m curious what legitimate uses had to be sacrificed in order to do so.

skissane 3mo ago
> I didn’t say block all illegitimate uses, though. We’re talking very specifically about disabling the production of CSAM But what is “CSAM”? If by it you mean illegal material-different jurisdictions worldwide have different laws on that topic, so material which is illegal in one jurisdiction can be legal in another.
- Lomlioto 3mo ago
  It was CSAM enough that the EU is investigating this. Why are you muddling the topic?
- afavour 3mo ago
  Ok, then let’s just say CSAM by definition of US law. Twice now you’ve tried to expand the parameters of this so that it becomes something impossible to tackle. But there’s no actual reason to do that. Grok is able to tackle CSAM, as demonstrated by the fact that they are currently doing it. The question is why they ignored the very public issue for as long as they did.
  - skissane 3mo ago
    > Ok, then let’s just say CSAM by definition of US law. “CSAM” isn’t a legal category under US law. “Child pornography” is a legal category under US law. But, according to the 2002 US Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (535 U.S. 234), so-called “virtual child pornography” (imagery produced by CGI or AI, not featuring the images of any identifiable real world minors), is (partially) protected [0] by the 1st Amendment, and excluded from the legal definition of “child pornography” in the US. So if “CSAM by definition of US law” you mean “child pornography”, then a lot of the material Grok was (reportedly) producing which people were labelling “CSAM” wasn’t actually CSAM by that definition. [0] “partially” because it still might be unprotected due to the difficult-to-prosecute obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment, but it is excluded from the scope of the distinct and much easier-to-prosecute child pornography exception
    - afavour 3mo ago
      > not featuring the images of any identifiable real world minors Right... but the material Grok was producing was featuring real world minors. Again, you're trying really really hard to expand the definition of what we're talking about to give Grok a pass and I do not understand why.
      - skissane 3mo ago
        > Again, you're trying really really hard to expand the definition of what we're talking about to give Grok a pass and I do not understand why. From my perspective, you come across as being more focused on making assumptions about other people’s motivations than on precision.
  - tick_tock_tick 3mo ago
    USA law would put everything created by Grok as legal.

by afavour 3mo ago

skissane 3mo ago

> I didn’t say block all illegitimate uses, though. We’re talking very specifically about disabling the production of CSAM But what is “CSAM”? If by it you mean illegal material-different jurisdictions worldwide have different laws on that topic, so material which is illegal in one jurisdiction can be legal in another.

Lomlioto 3mo ago
It was CSAM enough that the EU is investigating this. Why are you muddling the topic?
afavour 3mo ago
Ok, then let’s just say CSAM by definition of US law. Twice now you’ve tried to expand the parameters of this so that it becomes something impossible to tackle. But there’s no actual reason to do that. Grok is able to tackle CSAM, as demonstrated by the fact that they are currently doing it. The question is why they ignored the very public issue for as long as they did.
- skissane 3mo ago
  > Ok, then let’s just say CSAM by definition of US law. “CSAM” isn’t a legal category under US law. “Child pornography” is a legal category under US law. But, according to the 2002 US Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (535 U.S. 234), so-called “virtual child pornography” (imagery produced by CGI or AI, not featuring the images of any identifiable real world minors), is (partially) protected [0] by the 1st Amendment, and excluded from the legal definition of “child pornography” in the US. So if “CSAM by definition of US law” you mean “child pornography”, then a lot of the material Grok was (reportedly) producing which people were labelling “CSAM” wasn’t actually CSAM by that definition. [0] “partially” because it still might be unprotected due to the difficult-to-prosecute obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment, but it is excluded from the scope of the distinct and much easier-to-prosecute child pornography exception
  - afavour 3mo ago
    > not featuring the images of any identifiable real world minors Right... but the material Grok was producing was featuring real world minors. Again, you're trying really really hard to expand the definition of what we're talking about to give Grok a pass and I do not understand why.
    - skissane 3mo ago
      > Again, you're trying really really hard to expand the definition of what we're talking about to give Grok a pass and I do not understand why. From my perspective, you come across as being more focused on making assumptions about other people’s motivations than on precision.
- tick_tock_tick 3mo ago
  USA law would put everything created by Grok as legal.