Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephcsible | Hacker News Reader

If that's good reason to remove Grok and X, then Chrome and Safari should be removed too, since they can be used to access the exact same content.

View on HN

Chrome and Safari are browser agents, your window to the internet. Where you go is your problem.

X is a curated social network with algorithmic timeline. They’re 100% responsible for what gets posted there. Grok is a service of X, they’re 100% responsible and liable for what it outputs.

Curated means that everything is manually filtered. X is not manually filtered. Just like I can have anything on my domain on the Internet, I can post anything on my timeline and people can access it there.

xAI is actually generating the content, not just hosting it.

When a user is specifically jail-breaking the service to do so, I'll put it on the user rather than the service.

There's no jailbreaking going on here. The filters are all functioning as intended when someone requests transparent, skimpy, impossibly thin, or skin-tone clothing even on posts that explicitly give context that a child is pictured there. It's on the service.

Users just click the "edit image" button on someone else's post, then ask Grok to put a bikini on it. What's the jailbreak?

> Users just click the "edit image" button on someone else's post, then ask for Grok to put a bikini on it.

The user has to click edit. The user has to prompt. Why would you blame the software when these are all user actions?

> Unlike other leading chatbots, Grok doesn’t impose many limits on users or block them from generating sexualized content of real people, including minors, said Brandie Nonnecke, senior director of policy at Americans for Responsible Innovation. Other generative AI technologies, including ones from Anthropic PBC, OpenAI and Alphabet Inc.’s Google, are “giving a good-faith effort to mitigate the creation of this content in the first place,” she said. “Obviously, xAI is different. It’s more of a free-for-all.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-07/musk-s-gr...

If Photoshop had a "Create Child Porn" button and the user pushed it, we'd blame both the user and Photoshop.

There’s no “create child porn” button. The user has to explicitly ask for child porn. If someone uses GIMP to create child porn, do you blame GIMP?

If GIMP had AI features like this, I'd expect safeguards. It doesn't. All other AI tools have safeguards against this kind of bad behavior that are lacking in Grok.

GIMP doesn’t have AI features, but you can still use it to create nasty stuff and there are no safeguards against that.

As always with AI, the barrier to entry has evaporated. You can create nasty stuff with a pencil but you can't flood the internet mass producing nasty stuff with a pencil.

There are basic, obvious safeguards that are not in place here. That's why the software is to blame. If it was some sort of jailbreaking or circumvention, that'd be one thing. But given the owner himself is amplifying this, this borders on being an intended use case.

Sure, but when I open X, it's literally all over my front page.

Yeah, there is a plethora of images of kids in bikinis on Google search. Reddit and Bluesky have hosted actual child pornography

Reply on news.ycombinator.com