[flagged]
Uncontrolled profileration of AI-CSAM makes detection of "genuine" data much harder, prosecution of perpetrators more difficult and specifically in many of the grok cases it harms young victims that were used as templates for the material.
Content is unacceptable if its proliferation causes sufficient harm, and this is arguably the case here.
I don't follow. If the prosecutor can't find evidence of a crime and a person is not charged, that is considered harmful? As such the 5th amendment would fall under the same category and so would encryption. Making law enforcement have to work harder to find evidence of a crime cannot be criminalized unless you can come up with a reason why the actions themselves deserve to be criminalized.
> specifically in many of the grok cases it harms young victims that were used as templates for the material.
What is the criteria for this? If something is suitably transformed such that the original model for it is not discernable or identifiable, how can it harm them?
Do not take these as an argument against the idea you are arguing for, but as rebuttals against arguments that are not convincing, or if they were, would be terrible if applied generally.
You could make a multitude of arguments against that perspective, but at least there is a conclusive reason for legal restrictions.
> What is the criteria for this?
My criteria would be victims suffering personally from the generated material.
The "no harm" argument only really applies if victims and their social bubble never find out about the material (but that did happen, sometimes intentionally, in many cases).
You could make the same argument that a hidden camera in a locker room never causes any harm as long as it stays undetected; that is not very convincing to me.
But that reason is highly problematic. Laws should be able to stand on their own for their reasons. Saying 'this makes enforcement of other laws harder' does not do that. You could use the same reasoning against encryption.
> You could make the same argument that a hidden camera in a locker room never causes any harm as long as it stays undetected; that is not very convincing to me.
I thought you were saying that the kids who were in the dataset that the model was trained on would be harmed. I agree with what I assume you meant based on your reply, which is people who had their likeness altered are harmed.
I don't understand how that's the same reasoning at all... Encryption serves ones individual privacy and preserves it against malicious actors. I'd guess that's a fundamental right in most jurisdictions, globally.
We're talking CSAM here and shifting its creation into the virtual world through some GenAI prompts. Just because that content has been created artificially, doesn't make its storage and distribution any more legal.
It isn't some reductionist "this makes enforcement of other laws harder", but it's rather that the illegal distribution of artificially generated content acts as fraudulent obstruction in the prosecution of authentic, highly illegal, content - content with malicious actors and physically affected victims.
Yes. I almost completely agree with your outlook, but I think that many of our laws trade such individual freedoms for better society-wide outcomes, and those are often good tradeoffs.
Just consider gun legislation, driving licenses, KYC laws in finance, etc: Should the state have any business interfering there? I'd argue in isolation (ideally) not; but all those lead to huge gains for society, making it much less likely to be murdered by intoxicated drivers (or machine-gunners) and limit fraud, crime and corruption.
So even if laws look kinda bad from a purely theoretical-ethics point of view it's still important to look at the actual effects that they have before dismissing them as unjust in my view.
> You could make a multitude of arguments against that perspective, but at least there is a conclusive reason for legal restrictions.
I don't know about that. Would "I didn't know it was real" really count as a legal defense?
Absolutely-- prosecution would presumably need to at least show that you could have known the material was "genuine".
This could be a huge legal boon for prosecuted "direct customers" and co-perpetrators that can only be linked via shared material.
Movie ratings are a good example of a system for restricting who sees unacceptable content, yes.
There's basically no consent with what Grok is doing.
Wait how do you get consent from people that don't exist?
The "oh its photoshop" defence was an early one, which required the law to change in the uk to be "depictions" of children, so that people who talk about ebephiles don't have an out for creating/distributing illegal content.
As a father there shouldn’t be any CSAM content anywhere.
And think about that it is already proven these models apparently had CSAM content in their training data.
Also what about the nudes of actual people? That is invasion of privacy
I am shocked that we are even discussing this.
Speaking of freedom, I lost posting permission yesterday after my earlier post. Even though vile replies were insinuating vile things, my right of reply was taken away. We should never diminish the "name of freedom" as you've just done.
It should go without saying that CSAM is revolting. Who wants to see that stuff? Not me, not most people. Grok can't make that content. Maybe someone got around it temporarily. I've always thought Grok heavily censored, it refuses to analyse an image of the Statue of David because "naughty bits". The ironic and sad thing is a fig leaf gets around that restriction. So the accusation that Grok has no guardrails and can generate CSAM seems at best an anomaly or a lie.