Where does the line fall between provider responsibility when providing a tool that can produce protected work, and personal responsibility for causing it to generate that work?
It feels somewhat more clearcut when you say to AI, "Draw me an image of Mickey Mouse", but why is that different than photocopying a picture of Mickey Mouse, and using Photoshop to draw a picture of Mickey Mouse? Photo copiers will block copying a dollar bill in many cases - should they also block photos of Mickey Mouse? Should they have received firmware updates whenever Steamboat Willy fell into public domain, such that they can now be allowed to photocopy that specific instance of Mickey Mouse, but none other?
This is a slippery slope, the idea that a person using the tool should hold the tool responsible for creating "bad" things, rather than the person themselves being held responsible.
Maybe CSAM is so heinous as to be a special case here. I wouldn't argue against it specifically. But I do worry that it shifts the burden of responsibility onto the AI or the model or the service or whatever, rather than the person.
Another thing to think about is whether it would be materially different if the person didn't use Grok, but instead used a model on their own machine. Would the model still be responsible, or would the person be responsible?