X faces global investigations for deepfake porn of women and minors
boingboing.net
boingboing.net
In the HN guidelines there are two category definitions, on-topic and off-topic. I don't think there is an intellectually honest argument to make that this submission is not on-topic, but there is an argument to make that it is off-topic.
- it's related to a celebrity
- it's related to crime
- it's likely to appear on TV news
I'd also add that it's likely to spur strong emotions, political debate and any attempt by people to try and understand the actual legal nuances (e.g. how does each legal jurisdiction decide who is accountable, the platform, the user, how is the platform held accountable exactly, etc.) is likely to be labelled a sea lion and down voted by someone who just says "this is obviously illegal". In other words this topic is not conducive to intellectually curious discussion, which I think is the spirit of HN guidelines.
In other words there is a lot of noise between people who curiously engage in this topic, and the people who are offended by Grok and the people associated with it, and anyone who isn't also outraged and grabbing their pitchforks.
You are making an assumption that anyone who would label this as off topic is outright lying about why, and it may be that some people are, but I am not. I do think there is a benefit of the doubt interpretation to be made, which you may think is naive, but seems less naive for anyone who genuinely values HN as a sanctuary from the inflammatory dialog found in most other social media.
Further, when I attempted to converse with others about why this could be considered off-topic (another comment thread under this submission that you replied to), my character was repeatedly attacked, and many unfounded assumptions about my motives were made. These were clear signs to me that people were struggling to engage curiously.
People don't go after big auto because they sell cars that other people drive. If they suddenly started offering a service where they would drive people around in their cars, and they started crashing into other people, of course they would be responsible for that.
Gun manufacturer accountability (or lack thereof) is a complex topic and one with ongoing lawsuits and evolving legal arguments. (In the USA see the Bush-era NRA-backed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 and recent Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Mexico arguments).
Personally if a gun manufacturer markets a gun with the primary feature being finger print resistant (yes, that's real) and being easy to carry concealed, I think lawmakers should investigate. Likewise f someone makes a big CSAM generator button and puts it in front of millions of users, it also deserves legal attention.
I don't think fingerprint scanner on guns will be effective as it tracks ownership and not legality of usage. However, a number of modern vehicles do have capabilities to perform autonomous actions, including overriding user input.
For my own curiosity, could you please elaborate which law was broken? And if you do find one, elaborate how is it not unconstitutional, given that “put X into a bikini” is constitutionally protected speech, and the output fails the Roth test for obscenity and is thus protected just the same. Would not every other law claiming to be relevant be null and void w.r.t. stoping this in this particular case? SCOTUS was quite clear in Roth v. United States. The later Miller case is also of no help, since nowadays appearing publicly in a bikini is considered quite normal and not at all obscene or sexual.
I get it. If this happened to a member of my family, I'd be pissed too. But, as logical people is it not our job to NOT simply leap from "I'm very angry" to "It must be illegal", but to be calm and rational.
1. What specifically is? Posting twitter comments? Prompting an ML model? Generating images based on existing images?
2. Even if so, states are not allowed to make unconstitutional laws. 1stA covers this, as far as I can tell. Do you read Roth or Miller differently?
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+posting+nudes+of+women+wi...
Ted Cruz's "Take It Down" Act passed last year: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146
(This may or may not be constitutional in the end, but it's certainly current law on the books.)
Unfortunately if "put X into a bikini" is a command to an AI to generate CSAM of an underage child, that's no longer "constitutionally protected" territory. Also, these are global investigations - most countries don't have the same approach to freedom of speech as the US.
It's peculiar to me how people in the U.S. seem to prioritise "freedom of speech" and de-prioritise freedom from being harassed online. In general, I support free speech, but I don't take an absolutist position as there can be a lot of harm created by allowing lies to propagate unrestricted (c.f. Brexit in the UK). Meanwhile, there's direct emotional harm being caused by these AI images being posted and also a speech chilling effect by making people, especially women, afraid of posting on contentious topics.
- https://futurism.com/future-society/grok-violence-women
- https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grok-says-safeguard...
- https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elon-musk-...
Also, I imagine intent would come into play. “All I did was post some text, is it my fault grok generated kiddie porn” sounds similar to “all I did was undo the ebrake on my car, how was I know it would roll over onto that person”. If a reasonable person could predict a crime would occur, usually that’s a crime.