4 ms·
(I work on Grok) This isn't allowed. CSAM / deepfakes are against our acceptable use policy.
by leerob 2mo ago
(I work on Grok) This isn't allowed. CSAM / deepfakes are against our acceptable use policy.
- toasty228 2mo agoEnforce it then
- leerob 2mo agoWe are and will continue to.
- mplewis 2mo ago[flagged]
- Planktonne 2mo agoWhy didn't you before?
- arrosenberg 2mo agoI guess we will find out if it has stopped during the litigation of numerous lawsuits against your company for doing just that.
- mrhottakes 2mo ago[flagged]
- crustaceansoup 2mo agoYour company's owner was promoting the feature and joking about it, and called enforcement against it "fascism". CSAM generation kept up for weeks after the initial news articles, and as far as I can tell deepfake generation is still a feature. It's hard to take your AUP seriously here when you've seemingly done nothing technical to actually prevent the action.
- numpad0 2mo agoCSAM is by definition limited to real imageries and cannot be generated. "Generative CSAM" is like "false true information". The thing about criticisms that Grok generates "CSAM" images, as well as many similar claims using that acronym, are actually more likely to be intentional mislabeling intending to refer to anime images. Advocates groups with British links love to do it, supposedly to avoid having to name states and/or ethnicity associated with it. which is frustrating because this is how BS like in GP is allowed to exist. As for deepfakes... 100% they allow it, with weak plausible suggestion feature to decline it. They know that nobody will allow it if given an option. Same deal as Middle Eastern bot spams on Twitter: taking actual measures is against whatever their goals.
- vrganj 2mo ago> CSAM is by definition limited to real imageries and cannot be generated. Where in the definition does it imply this?
- Manfrednotfunny 2mo agoYeah for sure you work at Grok. Mechahitler? the lawsuite for CSAM in europe? Learn about were you work and whom you work for...
- wasfgwp 2mo agoAs funny as Mechahitler was it was more of a Microsoft Tay moment with the chatbot parroting what Twitter’s users were telling him without guardrails or a safe system prompt. It had nothing to do with grok’s or Musks pro nazi views (or lack thereof)
- Manfrednotfunny 2mo agoYes it did. Elon Musk wasn't happy that his own chatbot was to left, so they 'adjusted' grok so often until it became mechahitler.
- wasfgwp 2mo agoBut that’s not what actually happened.
- dbbk 2mo ago[flagged]
- pembrook 2mo agoSo, what do you do for a living? You've made a personal attack and seem to be under the impression you're morally superior. So, I'm curious as to what highly virtuous role you take on in your daily life. That said, I see your comment history is a lot of one sentence personal attacks against people. Not a lot of thoughtful debate. This makes hypocrisy out of your supposed concern for social good.
- slowin 2mo agoElon Musk literally went to court to protect the ability to make child porn with Grok: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/07/31_xAI.asp https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/07/31_...
- brigandish 2mo agoIf it were literal then you'd be able to quote the exact part of the text that says that, but you can't because that is literally not in the page. Even Ellison, who surely would love to make that claim, is intelligent enough not to make that claim directly. A more balanced view[1] of the proceedings is available via mainstream news: > In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI — whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere — said it does not contest the state’s interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota’s law “extends far beyond that goal,” banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation. > The lawsuit argues there is no “safe harbor” provision for companies that make good-faith efforts to prevent such images from being created by users, and that it covers images that were consented to by the depicted person, or even created by that person. > It also says the law’s definition of “intimate part” is overly broad, covering body parts that are routinely displayed in public. Calm down. [1] https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-artificial-intelligence-nudification-x-elon-musk-deepfake-131184be939d540de093b567b12c9e16 https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-artificial-intelligence...