Comment by bobsomers

2 months ago

And for generating an absolutely gargantuan amount of CSAM and non-consensual sexualized images, but yeah, exfiltrating data too.

44 comments

bobsomers

Reply
blizzard_dev_17  2 months ago

You're the one wanting to generate that though

  • jdiff  2 months ago

    No other model is so easy to generate such things. No model is so negligent in adding safeguards. I've seen it generate such things in response to a post that was clearly labeled as a 4th grader. The person you are talking to is responding to instances like that. They're not asking for it, that's obnoxiously silly and disingenuous.

    • exodust  2 months ago

      Sounds like you've tried generating such things. You've seen things people wouldn't believe. Inappropriate AI images off the shoulder of Orion, etc.

      Now the counter-weight over-compensation. Insisting the tool "doesn't have enough safeguards". Could it be that our AI usage innocence is related to how much we criticise the tool for not policing us enough?

      Meanwhile the rest of us have never seen such images because we're not looking for those images, or trying to prompt for those images, or thinking about those images. How about the people using these tools take responsibility, rather than forcing colossal layers of safeguards on everything and everyone?

      5 replies →

mlindner  2 months ago

You can't "generate" CSAM. CSAM definitionally had to be about abuse of real children. It's still bad and should be illegal but lumping them together is bad.

  • roryirvine  2 months ago

    You do realise that saying "SpaceX are producing and distributing child porn, not CSAM" doesn't actually make things better for them, don't you?

    • mlindner  2 months ago

      Personally I think AI should be treated like photoshop. If someone is creating life-like imagery of child sexual abuse that you can't determine if its real or not, then that would be the criminal action of the person producing it. Software companies should not be acting like overlords on how their software can be used.

      People get upset when states try to legislate that 3D printer manufacturers should detect and prevent people trying to make gun parts, but somehow this is different.

      1 reply →

dijit  2 months ago

If I use a shovel to kill a man, the shovel maker did not engage in intentionally crafting a weapon of war.

How tools are used are a reflection of the people who use them, and I definitely sympathise that tools should have guardrails to not enable this, or at least detect it.

But if a pedophile uses Whatsapp to groom a child; I don't go after Whatsapp for being a neutral service... I go after the pedophile.

  • afavour  2 months ago

    Just as well Grok isn’t a shovel then, hey?

    If a shovel manufacturer was notified numerous times that their shovel was being used for murder and they had the capability to disable using the shovel for murder while retaining all legitimate uses wouldn’t people question why they didn’t do it?

    • skissane  2 months ago

      > If a shovel manufacturer was notified numerous times that their shovel was being used for murder and they had the capability to disable using the shovel for murder while retaining all legitimate uses wouldn’t people question why they didn’t do it?

      This is impossible-nobody can possibly block all illegitimate uses without also blocking some legitimate ones as collateral damage. Any moderation process (whether automated or human) inevitably has a non-zero false positive rate.

      Now, you can argue that some misuse is so harmful, that the cost of false positives is worth it - but that’s a different claim.

      9 replies →

  • solumunus  2 months ago

    If WhatsApp knew their platform was facilitating CSAM, and they were fully within their power to prevent this but chose not to - yes this would rightly draw criticism…

  • jazzpush2  2 months ago

    Ok, but what if all Whatsapp competitors explicitly banned the ability to groom children on their platform, but Whataspp didn't, and directly advertised it.

    • dijit  2 months ago

      I find the premise of your comment completely incredulous.

      I totally understand tribalism, and Elon and X aren't exactly well favoured. (not even by me)

      But what you're saying right now is that they advertised the fact that they can create child pornography and deepfakes..

      I simply don't believe it, unless you provide evidence.

      3 replies →

tick_tock_tick  2 months ago

Are you suggesting Grok hired some people on the dark web or some shit? An AI model can't generate CSAM what kind of bullshit are you spewing.