Hacker News Reader

Comment by uyzstvqs | Hacker News Reader

This is a good way to regulate this. Criminalize people who abuse AI tools to cause harm. Don't try to impose censorship or mass-surveillance on AI tools. I oppose all pornography, but censoring nudity from a model both compromises the model's quality (example: SD3) and stops legitimate artistic value.

Though the framing on Grok is highly duplicitous. It is against the ToS, and it's about a few abusers among millions of legitimate users. Meanwhile there are actual "nudification" services which advertise themselves entirely to enable this kind of abuse.

View on HN

who decides what is harmful? That's going to be like letting a Bible thumping Moral Majority zealot decide what's Art and what's pornography.

The courts. Just like if you sue someone for anything else. Demonstrating harm is part of the process.

The law's definition of harm is massively subjective. It will have judges who think words are violence or make the process the punishment.

This is a law that will be used to censor.

OK? Law is subjective to a degree because it has to be. We write tests and rules and then a judge figures out the specific outcome. That's how law works.

And under which jurisdiction is this going to be prosecuted? So some random Nazi on Twitter makes CSAM of an Irish actress - is Musk going to comply with the subpoena to help the Irish authorities find the user? He’s already said he won’t be punishing users for ‘free speech’ as he defines it.. so then what?

Note that the bill includes "distributes", so Twitter clearly counts as "distributor".

More interesting question: if the Twitter app is made available through the Apple App store, then would famous Irish-based multinational company Apple be liable as well?

The images would be published by Grok, which is part of Twitter. They are responsible for what they themselves publish. Hence Twitter is the obvious choice of where to direct the subpoena.

Then we prosecute Musk.

Who defines what a crime is anyways right?

Nudity, including artistic nudity, is in itself the complete opposite of pornography. One is human nature, with art depicting its beauty and purity, while the latter is about the gratification of lust.

As a Christian, pornography is clearly sinful and harmful. But if you wish to use your free will to partake in it, then you do you. Non-consensual pornography (which is what this is about) causes harm to another person, which is why it cannot be tolerated.

This should be obvious IMO.

And yet, the total number of abusive images created by grok dwarfs these alternative services.

> This is a good way to regulate this. Criminalize people who abuse AI tools to cause harm.

In same way as is done so successfully with guns, speeding automobiles, etc?

These things are capable of inferring photorealistic av deepfakes; with a well drafted law they're more than capable of inferring if what they are being asked to is illegal.

It makes zero sense to wait for the poop to hit the fan and then waste taxes investigating the illegality, punishing criminals, and dealing with impact on victims when it can stopped at source.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com