EU also investigating as Grok generated 23,000 CSAM images in 11 days
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
Title of the study and article says that Grok "Generated", but in fact:
> The CCDH then extrapolated
Basically they invent numbers.
They took a sample of 20k generated images, and it is assumed (but I don't know if the source is reliable) that Grok would have generated 4.6 millions image at the same time. So the sample is 00.4%.
If you see the webpage of the CCDH it is a joke their study. First:
- Images were defined as sexualized if they contain [...] a person in underwear, swimwear or similarly revealing clothing.
- Sexualized Images (Adults & Children): 12,995 found
- Sexualized Images (Likely Children): 101 found
1) Zero is basically never the best error rate, effort isn't infinite and spending too much of it on one defect ends up meaning spending less on other issues.
2) Look at what he's saying. This is a classic pattern for providing a fake proof of evil.
a) Point to evil. For example, CSAM
b) Expand the definition of that evil in ways that are often not even evil. Here, include scantily clad in your definition of "sexual". Note that swimsuits qualify.
c) Point to examples of evil in your expanded pool.
d) Claim this points to evidence of the original definition. Note that nothing about their claims precludes their "CSAM" being nothing more than ordinary beach or pool scenes. Their claim includes the null and when the null is a possible answer it should be assumed.
I agree that a zero error rate is generally not possible, although I think a company like Xitter can manage better than 101 in 20k.
Even if it’s “only” 1 million that would be a math task. Random sampling is the best we can do.
There are psychological books on identifying signs of prepubescence based on facial and genitalia features that one can search for if they are in that line of work. Some of the former Facebook mods with PTSD know what I am referring to.
Leave everything else to manual flagging assuming Grok has a flag or report button that is easy to find. If not send links to these people [1] if in the USA.
[1] - https://www.ic3.gov/
[1] The methodology just says "To collect the sample, researchers used a licensed third-party tool to select 20,000 posts at random out of all Grok posts that contained an image"
We have that 101 images were "Sexualized Images (Likely Children)" after a manual review of 20,000 images.
> A selfie uploaded by a schoolgirl was undressed by Grok, turning a “before school selfie” into an image of her in a bikini. As of January 15th this post was still live on X. ... Four images depicting child actors.
I think you may be coming to this view from the approach that this is just the AI using imagination/hallucination so it’s “art”, but a better approach would be to treat it like a real photo taken secretly because absent overt labeling of its AI origins that is exactly how the world will treat it.
All this pursuit of grey area stuff distracts from pursuit of the real problem.
The only distraction comes from people saying this is okay, and those people are bound to always practice a motte and bailey argument style to hide the fact that they are generally okay with CSAM.
The same people who defended “creep shots” and “family nudism photos” are now defending GrokAi.
Choosing not to counter them, merely allows them to normalize grey areas so they can use them to freely seek association with others with more obscene and obviously illegal content.
Anyone would take a sample and then do some math. There's no reason to expend all that time.