- you are thinking about a company doing good things the right way. You are thinking about a company abiding by the law, storing data on its own server, having good practices, etc.
The moment a company starts to do dubious stuff then good practices start to go out the window. People write email with cryptic analogies, people start deleting emails, ... then as the circumvention become more numerous and complex, there needs to still be a trail in order to remain understandable. That trail will be in written form somehow and that must be hidden. It might be paper, it might be shadow IT but the point is that if you are not just forgetting to keep track of coffee pods at the social corner, you will leave traces.
So yes, raids do make sense BECAUSE it's about recurring complex activities that are just too hard to keep in the mind of one single individual over long periods of time.
Of course they're going to raid their offices! They're investigating a crime! It would be quite literally insane if they tried to prosecute them for a crime and how up to court having not even attempted basic steps to gather evidence!
"Shocking Grok images"... really? It's AI. We know AI can make any image. The images are nothing but fake digital paintings that lose all integrity as quickly as they're generated.
Beyond comedic kicks for teenage boys, they're inconsequential for everyone else. But nevermind that, hand me a pitchfork and pre-fabricated sign and point me to the nearest anti-Grok protest.
Grok is a platform that is enabling this en masse. If xAI can't bring in guardrails or limit who can access these capabilities, then they deserve what's coming to them.
I am with you on publishing these...
Let's start from the beginning, create and own:
You're sketching out some nude fanart on a piece of paper. You created that and own that. Thas has always been illegal?!
(This is apart from my feelings on Mechahitler/Grok, which aren't positive.)
It sounds like they are following due process.
Have we a outsourced all accountability for the crimes of humans to AI now?
Those boys absolutely should be held accountable. But I also don't think that Grok should be able to quickly and easily generate fake revenge porn for minors.
[1] https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/girl-...
And the AI is at fault for this sentencing, not the school authorities/prosecutors/judges dishing justice? WTF.
How is this an AI problem and not a legal system problem?
You can’t just “undo” some girl being harassed by AI generated nude photos of her, so we…
Yes, we should have some protections or restrictions on what you can do.
You may not understand it, either because you aren’t a parent or maybe just not emotionally equipped to understand how serious this actually can be, but your lack of comprehension does not render it a non-issue.
Having schools play whack-a-mole after the photos are shared around is not a valid strategy. Never mind that schools primarily engage in teaching, not in investigation.
As AI-generated content gets less and less distinguishable from reality, these incidents will have far worse consequences and putting such power in the hands of adolescents who demonstrably don’t have sound judgment (hence why they lack many other rights that adults have) is not something most parents are comfortable with - and I doubt you’ll find many teachers, psychiatrists and so on who would support your approach either.
No, but if you send those people who made and distributed the AI nude of her to jail, these problems will virtually disappear overnight, because going to jail is a hugely effective deterrent for most people.
But if you don't directly prosecute the people doing it, and instead just ban Grok AI, then those people will just use other AI tools, outside of US jurisdiction, to do the same things and the problem persists.
And the issues keeps persisting, because nobody ever goes to jail. Everyone only gets a slap on the wrist, deflects accountability by blaming the AI, so the issue keeps persisting and more people end up getting hurt because those who do the evil are never held directly accountable.
Obviously Grok shouldn't be legally allowed to generate fakes nudes of actual kids, but in case such safeguards can and will be bypassed, that doesn't absolve the humans from being the ones knowingly breaking the law to achieve a nefarious goal.
In good faith, a few things - AI generated imagery and Photoshop are not the same. If someone can mail Adobe and a photo of a kid and ask for a modified one and Adobe sent it back, yes Adobe’s offices will be raided. That’s the equivalent here. It’s not a tool. It’s a service. You keep using AI, without taking a moment to give the “intelligence” any thought.
Yes, powerful people are always going to get by, as you say. And the laws & judicial system are for the masses. There is definitely unfairness in it. But that doesn’t change anything here - this is a separate conversation.
If not Grok then someone else will do it - is a defeatist argument that can only mean it can’t be controlled so don’t bother. This point is where you come across as a CSAM defender. Govt’s will/should do whatever they can to make society safe, even if it means playing whack a mole. Arguing that’s “not efficient” is frankly confusing. Judicial system is about fairness and not efficiency.
frankly, I think you understand all of this and maybe got tunnel visioned in your anger at the unfairness of people scapegoating technology for its failings. That’s the last thing I want to point out, raiding an office is taking action against the powerful people who build systems without accountability. They are not going to sit the model down and give a talking to. The intention is to identify the responsible party that allows this to happen.
Youths lack judgment, so they can’t vote, drink, drive, have sex or consent to adults.
A 14-year-old can’t be relied to understand the consequences of making nudes of some girl.
Beyond that, we regulate guns, speed limits and more according to principles like “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose”.
We do that not only because shoving kids into jails is something we want to avoid, but because regulating at the source of the problem is both more feasible AND heads off a lot of tragedy.
And again, you fail to acknowledge the investigative burden you put on society to discover who originated the photo after the fact, and the trauma to the victim.
If none of that computes for you, then I don’t know what to say except I don’t place the right to generate saucy images highly enough to swarm my already overworked police with requests to investigate who generated fake underage porn.
You definitely can. You don't have to prosecute and send a million people to jail for making and distributing fake AI nudes, you just have to send a couple, and then the problem virtually goes away.
People underestimate how effective direct personal accountability is when it comes with harsh consequences like jail time. That's how you fix all issues in society and enforce law abiding behavior. You make the cost of the crime greater than the gains from it, then crucify some people in public to set an example for everyone else.
Do people like doing and paying their taxes? No, but they do it anyway. Why is that? Because THEY KNOW that otherwise they go to jail. Obviously the IRS and legal system don't have the capacity to send the whole country to jail if they were to stop paying taxes, but they send enough to jail in order for the majority of the population to not risk it and follow the law.
It's really that simple.
In this case, it's far simpler to prosecute the source.
I don't accept this as good faith argumentation nor does HN rules.
For disagreeing on the injection of offtopic hypothetical scenarios as an argument derailing the main topic?
>It should not be possible to create nudes of minors via Grok.
I agree with THIS part, I don't agree with the part where the main blame is on the AI, instead of on the people using it. That's not a bad faith argument, it's just My PoV.
If Grok disappears tomorrow, there will be other AIs from other parts of the world outside of US/EU jurisdiction, that will do the same since the cat is out of the bag and the technical barrier to entry is dropping fast.
Do you keep trying to whack-a-mole the AI tools for this, or the humans actually making and distributing fake nudes of real people?
Other AIs have guardrails. If Musk chooses not to implement them, that's his personal irresponsibility.
The school authorities messed up.
Both are accuntable.
Correction: kids made the pictures. Using Grok as the tool.
If kids were to "git gud" at photoshop and use that to make nudes, would you arrest Adobe?
If kids ask a newspaper vendor for cigarettes and he provides them .. that's a no-no.
If kids ask a newspaper vendor for nudes and he provides them .. that's a no-no.
If kids ask Grok for CSAM and it provides them .. then ?
Meanwhile, the existence/creation CSAM of actual people isn't legal, for anyone no matter the age.
So when Grok provides the illegal pictures then by the same logic it is Grok that is breaking the law.
If parents or school let children roam the internet unsupervised... then?
The explosive sellers that provide explosives to someone without a certification (child or adult) get in trouble (in this part of the world) .. regardless of whether someone gets hurt (although that's an upscale).
If sellers provide ExPo to certified parents and children get access .. that's on the parents.
In that analagy of yours, if grok provided ExPo or CSAM to children .. that's a grok problem,
(Ditto drugs).
It's on the provider to children. ie Grok.
That's actually a good argument. And that's how the UK ending up banning not just guns, but all sorts of swords, machetes and knives, meanwhile the violent crime rates have not dropped.
So maybe dangerous knives are not the problem, but the people using them to kill other people. So then where do we draw the line between lethal weapons and crime correlation. At which cutting/shooting instruments?
Same with software tools, that keep getting more powerful with time lowering the bar to entry for generating nudes of people. Where do we draw the line on which tools are responsible for that instead of the humans using them for it?
The knife (as opposed to sword) example is interesting. In the U.K. you’re not allowed to sell them to children. We recognise that there is individual responsibility at play, and children might not be responsible enough to buy them, given the possible harms. Does this totally solve their use in violent crime? No. But if your alternative is “it’s up to the individuals to be responsible”, well, that clearly doesn’t work, because some people are not responsible. At a certain point, if your job is to reduce harm in the population, you look for where you can have a greater impact than just hoping every individual follows the law, because they clearly don’t. And you try things even if they don’t totally solve the problem.
And indeed, the same problem in software.
As for the violent crime rates in the U.K., I don’t have those stats to hand. But murder is at a 50 year low. And since our post-Dunblane gun laws, we haven’t had any school shootings. Most Britons are happy with that bargain.
The rate of school shootings has dropped from one (before the implementation of recommendations from the Cullen report) to zero (subsequently). Zero in 29 years - success by any measure.
If you choose to look at _other_ types of violent crime, why would banning handguns have any effect?
> Where do we draw the line on which tools are responsible for that instead of the humans using them for it?
You can ban tools which enable bad outcomes without sufficient upside, while also holding the people who use them to account.
No. That is not how AI nowdays works. Kids told the tool what they want and the tool understood and could have refused like all the other models - but instead it delivered. And it only could do so because it was specifically trained for that.
"If kids were to "git gud" at photoshop "
And what is that supposed to mean?
Adobe makes general purpose tools as far as I know.
Anyone skilled at photoshop can do fake nudes as good or even better than AI, including kids (we used it to make fun fakes of teachers in embarrassing situations back in the mid 00s and distribute them via MSN messenger), so then why is only the AI tool the one to blame for what the users do, but not Photoshop if both tools can be used to do the same thing?
People can now 3D print guns at home, or at least parts that when assembled can make a functioning firearm. Are now 3D printer makers to blame if someone gets killed with a 3D printed gun?
Where do we draw the line at tools in terms of effort required, between when the tool bares the responsibility and not just the human using the tool to do illegal things? This is the answer I'm looking for and I don't think there is an easy one, yet people here are too quick to pin blame based on their emotional responses and subjective biases and word views on the matter and the parties involved.
Banning AI doesn't stop the damage from occurring. Bullies at school/college have been harassing their victims, often to suicide for decades/centuries before AI.
Edit for the addition of the line about bullying: "Bullying has always happened, therefore we should allow new forms of even worse bullying to flourish freely, even though I readily acknowledge that it can lead to victims committing suicide" is a bizarre and self-contradictory take. I don't know what point you think you're making.
To paraphrase "your tech bros were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they never considered if they should"
Education might be so disrupted you have to change schools.
The crime is creating a system that lets schoolboys create fake nudes of other minors.
You don't just get to build a CSAM-generator and then be like "well I never intended for it to be used...".
The humans running a company are liable for the product that their company builds, easy as that.
So like Photoshop? Do you want to raid Adobe's HQ?
Is that your argument? Did you ever expect the government to go after Adobe for "enabling" this?
Edit: clarified the last sentence
This is a political action by the French... slowly loosing their relevance, even inside the EU. Nothing else.
But police don’t care about moral equivalence. They care about the law. For the legal details we would need to consult French law. But I assume it is illegal to create and distribute the images. Heck, it’s also probably against Twitter’s TOS too so by all rights the grok account should be banned.
> This is a political action by the French
Maybe. They probably don’t like a foreign company coming in, violating their children, and getting away with it. But what Twitter did was so far out of line that I’d be shocked if French companies weren’t treated the same way.
I very much so expect it to be illegal to distribute the images, of course (creating them, not so much).
But the illegality, in a sane world (and until 5 minutes ago) used to be attached to the person actually distributing them. If some student distributes fake sexualized images of their colleague, I very much expect the perpetrator to be punished by the law (and by the school, since we are at it).
You should want to protect all of the people in your life from such a thing or nobody.
It is a privately controlled public-facing group chat. Being a chat-medium does not grant you the same rights as being a person. France isn't America.
If a company operates to the detriment and against the values of a nation, e.g. not paying their taxes or littering in the environment, the nation will ask them to change their behavior.
If there is a conspiracy of contempt, at some point things escalate.
Plus, how do you even judge the age of AI generated fake people to say it's CP? Reminds me when UK activists were claiming Grok's anime girl avatar was a minor and deserved to be considered CP, when she had massive tits that no kid has. So how much of this is just a political witch-hunt looking for any reason to justify itself?
Also, it seems pretty likely that Musk is tangled up with the Epstein shit. First Musk claimed he turned down offer to go to the island. Now it turns out Musk repeatedly sought to visit, including wanting to know when the "wildest" party was happening, after Epstein was already known as a child sex abuser. Musk claimed that Epstein had never been given a tour of SpaceX but it turns out he did in 2013. It's the classic narcissistic "lie for as long as possible" behaviour. Will be interesting to see what happens as more is revealed.
No i said no such thing, what I said was that the resources of authorities is a finite pie. If most of it goes towards petty stuff like corporate misbehavior that hurts nobody, there won't be enough for the grave crimes like actual child abuser that actually hurt real people.
Same how police won't bother with your stolen phone/bike because they have bigger crimes to catch. I'm asking for the same logic be applied here.
1.) That is not how it works, even if we ignore the fact that France is not USA.
2.) Lack of resources was not the issue with Epstein prosecution. The prosecutor was literally told to not investigate by her superiors who were trying to stop the case. She was told she is unsubordinated for doing it. Acosta giving Epstein sweetheart deal or seeking to stop the prosecutor is not the resources issue.
It is billionaires (Thiel, Musk, Gates), politicians (Clinton, Luthnic ) media darlings (Summers, Kraus and the rest of sexism is totally not a thing anymore crowd literally partying with Epstein) are to be protected at all cost issue. Even now, people implicated in Epstein files are still getting influential positions with explicit "it would be cancel culture to not give these people more influence" argument.
THat's like the 1993 moral panic that video games like Doom cause mass shootings, or the 1980's mass panic that metal music causes satanist, or the 1950s moral panic that superhero comic book violence leads to juvenile delinquency. Politicians are constantly looking for an external made up enemy to divert attention to from the real problems.
People like Epstein and mass woman/child exploitation have existed for thousands of years in the past, and will exist thousands of years in the future. It's part of the nature of the rich and powerful to execute on their deranged fetishes, it's been documented in writing since at least the Roman and Ottoman empires.
Hell, I can guarantee you there's other Epsteins operating in the wild right now, that we haven't heard of (yet), it's not like he was in any way unique. I can also guarantee you that 1 in 5-10 normal looking people you meet daily on the street have similar deranged desires as the guests on Epstein's island but can't execute on them because they're not as rich and influential to get away with it, but they'd do it if they could.
Also, framing the issue of sexual abuse by untouchable issue as the same as superhero comic issue (which itself was not just about superhero comic and you should know it) is spectacularly bad faith.
Yes, there were always people who were stealing, abusing, murdering for own gain and fun. That is not an argument for why we should accept and support it as normalized state of world. It is a good reason to prevent people from becoming too powerful and for building accountable institutions able to catch and punish them.
Apart from doom wasn't producing illegal content.
the point is that grok is generating illegal content for those jurisdictions. In france you can't generate CSAM, in the UK you can't distribute CSAM. Those are actual laws with legal tests, none of them need to be of actual people, they just need to depict _children_ to be illegal.
Moral panics require new laws to enforce, generally. This is just enforcing already existing laws.
More over, had it been any other site, it would have been totally shut down by now and the servers impounded. Its only because musk is close to trump and rich that he's escaped the fate than you or I would have had if we'd done the same.
Sure but where's the proof that Grok is actually producing illegal content? I searched for news sources, but they're just all parroting empty accusations not concrete documented cases.
In the UK it is illegal to create, distribute and store CSAM. A news site printing a photo CSAM would make them legally up the shitter.
However, the IWF, who are tasked with detecting this stuff have claimed to have found evidence of it, along with multiple other sources, Ofcom who are nominally supposed to police this have an open investigation, so do the irish police.
The point is, law has a higher threshold of proof than news, which takes time. If there is enough evidence, then a court case (or other instrument) will be invoked.
Note that IWF is not a random charity it works with the Police on these matters.
I found this as the first item in Kagi search - perhaps you should try non AI searches
Do you guys even hear yourselves?
Some of those might still try.
And what does AI have to do with this? Haven't child predators existed before AI?
Where's the proof that AI produces more child predators?
You're just going in circles without any arguments.
> Another line of reasoning is that with more fake CP it is more difficult to research the real CP hunt down the perpetrators and consequently save children.
(own quote)
Yes, the predators existed before AI, but also:
> I think the reasoning is that the AI contributes to more offenders (edited).
(own quote, edited)
To be clear, I don't think this line of reasoning is entirely convincing, but apparently some people do.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/starmers-government-aids-po...
Unlike the US administration which seems to be fine with what epstein and X are doing
The UK's "investigation" is a farce.
No platform ever should allow CSAM content.
And the fact that they didn’t even care and haven’t want to spend money for implementing guardrails or moderation is deeply concerning.
This has imho nothing to do with model censorship, but everything with allowing that kind of content on a platform
A provider should have no responsibility how the tools are used. It is on users. This is a can of worms that should stay closed, because we all lose freedoms just because of couple of bad actors. AI and tool main job is to obey. We are hurling at "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that" future with breakneck speed.
We already apply this logic elsewhere. Car makers must include seatbelts. Pharma companies must ensure safety. Platforms must moderate illegal content. Responsibility is shared when the risk is systemic.
Platforms moderating illegal content is exactly what we are arguing about, so you can't use it as an argument.
The rest cases you list are harms to the people using the tools/products. It is not harms that people using the tools inflict on third parties.
We are literally arguing about 3d printer control two topics downstream. 3d printers in theory can be used for CSAM too. So we should totally ban them - right? So are pencils, paper, lasers, drawing tablets.
> And the fact that they didn’t even care and haven’t want to spend money for implementing guardrails or moderation is deeply concerning.
In the 90s, the principal of a prominent school in my city was arrested for CSAM on his computer downloaded from the Internet.
As the story made the news most people were trying to wrap their head around this "Internet" thing and how it could produce CSAM material. Remember, in the 90s the "Internet" was a bit like quantum computing for most people, hard to understand how it works and only a few actually played with it.
I have no idea how that school principal downloaded the CSAM. UUCP, FTP, Usenet or maybe the brand new "World Wide Web"? But I guess the justice system had to figure out how that stuff works to prosecute him.
So the society and the state knew for at least 30 years the Internet is full of that stuff. The question is why are they so motivated to do something about it only now?
Could it be because the "web of rich and powerful pedos" is getting exposed through the Epstein affair in the last few years?
So maybe they need to pretend to crack down on the "web of poor pedos"?
What's new is that X automated the production of obscene or sexualised images by providing grok. This was also done in a way that confronted everyone; it's very different from a black market, this is basically a harassment tool for use against women and girls.
Should platforms allow violent AI images? How about "R-Rated" violence like we see in popular movies? Point blank executions, brutal and bloody conflict involving depictions of innocent deaths, torment and suffering... all good? Hollywood says all good, how about you? How far do you take your "unacceptable content" guidance?
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.
Movie ratings are a good example of a system for restricting who sees unacceptable content, yes.
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.
Sure, I saw the bikini pics which I agree is weird and shouldn’t be allowed but it’s not CSAM under a legal definition.
I still believe that the EU and aligned countries would rather have America to agree to much tighter speech controls, digital ID, ToS-based speech codes as apparently US Democrats partly or totally agree to. But if they have workable alternatives they will deal with them from a different position.
For some reason you forgot to mention "Like the US did with TikTok".
esp. when America already controls the main outlets through Android Play Store and Apple Store, and yep, they have proven to control them not just happen to host them as a country
arguably America did have valid security concerns with Huawei though, but if those are the rules then you cannot complain later on
They are tasked - and held to account by respective legislative bodies - with implementing the law as written.
Nobody wrote a law saying "Go after Grok". There is however a law in most countries about the creation and dissemination of CSAM material and non-consensual pornography. Some of that law is relatively new (the UK only introduced some of these laws in recent years), but they all predate the current wave of AI investment.
Founders, boards of directors and their internal and external advisors could:
1. Read the law and make sure any tools they build comply
2. When told their tools don't comply take immediate and decisive action to change the tools
3. Work with law enforcement to apply the law as written
Those companies, if they find this too burdensome, have the choice of not operating in that market. By operating in that market, they both implicitly agree to the law, and are required to explicitly abide by it.
They can't then complain that the law is unfair (it's not), that it's being politicised (How? By whom? Show your working), and that this is all impossible in their home market where they are literally offering presents to the personal enrichment of the President on bended knee while he demands that ownership structures of foreign social media companies like TikTok are changed to meet the agenda of himself and his administration.
So, would the EU like more tighter speech controls? Yes, they'd like implementation of the controls on free speech enshrined in legislation created by democratically appointed representatives. The alternative - algorithms that create abusive content, of women and children in particular - are not wanted by the people of the UK, the EU, or most of the rest of the World, laws are written to that effect, and are then enforced by the authorities tasked with that enforcement.
This isn't "anti-democratic", it's literally democracy in action standing up to technocratic feudalism that is an Ayn Randian-wet dream being played out by some morons who got lucky.
As someone who has lived in (and followed current affairs) in both of these countries, this is a very idealistic and naïve view. There can be a big gap between theory and practice
> There are statutory instruments (in France, constitutional clauses), that determine the independence of these authorities.
> They are tasked - and held to account by respective legislative bodies -
It's worth nothing here that the UK doesn't have separation of powers or a supreme court (in the US sense)
however it's a very mainstream point of view so i respect that he/she has laid it out pretty well, so i upvoted the comment
The European Court of Human Rights has reminded this point (e.g. 29 Mar 2010, appl. no. 3394/03), and the Court of Justice of the European Union reaches a very similar conclusion (2 Mar 2021, C-746/18): prosecutors are part of the executive hierarchy and can’t be treated as the neutral, independent judicial check some procedures require.
For a local observer, this is made obvious by the fact that the procureur, in France, always follows current political vibes, usually in just a few months delay (extremely fast, when you consider how slowly justice works in the country).
This step could come before a police raid.
This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers.
Siezing records is usually a major step in an investigation. Its how you get evidence.
Sure it could just be harrasment, but this is also how normal police work looks. France has a reasonable judicial system so absent of other evidence i'm inclined to believe this was legit.
So the question becomes if it was done knowingly or recklessly, hence a police raid for evidence.
See also [0] for a legal discussion in the German context.
I think one big issue with this statement – "CSAM" lacks a precise legal definition; the precise legal term(s) vary from country to country, with differing definitions. While sexual imagery of real minors is highly illegal everywhere, there's a whole lot of other material – textual stories, drawings, animation, AI-generated images of nonexistent minors – which can be extremely criminal on one side of an international border, de facto legal on the other.
And I'm not actually sure what the legal definition is in France; the relevant article of the French Penal Code 227-23 [0] seems superficially similar to the legal definition of "child pornography" in the United States (post-Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition), and so some–but (maybe) not all–of the "CSAM" Grok is accused of generating wouldn't actually fall under it. (But of course, I don't know how French courts interpret it, so maybe what it means in practice is something broader than my reading of the text suggests.)
And I think this is part of the issue – xAI's executives are likely focused on compliance with US law on these topics, less concerned with complying with non-US law, in spite of the fact that CSAM laws in much of the rest of the world are much broader than in the US. That's less of an issue for Anthropic/Google/OpenAI, since their executives don't have the same "anything that's legal" attitude which xAI often has. And, as I said – while that's undoubtedly true in general, I'm unsure to what extent it is actually true for France in particular.
[0] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT0000...
The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography.
One the one hand, it seems "obvious" that Grok should somehow be legally required to have guardrails stopping it from producing kiddie porn.
On the other hand, it also seems "obvious" that laws forcing 3D printers to detect and block attempts to print firearms are patently bullshit.
The thing is, I'm not sure how I can reconcile those two seemingly-obvious statements in a principled manner.
If you use a service like Grok, then you use somebody elses computer / things. X is the owner from computer that produced CP. So of course X is at least also a bit liable for producing CP.
Also, safe harbor doesn't apply because this is published under the @grok handle! It's being published by X under one of their brand names, it's absurd to argue that they're unaware or not consenting to its publication.
I'd guess Elon is responsible for that product decision.
There is no functionality for the users to review and approve "Grok" responses to their tweets.
If you’re hosting content, why shouldn’t you be responsible, because your business model is impossible if you’re held to account for what’s happening on your premises?
Without safe harbor, people might have to jump through the hoops of buying their own domain name, and hosting content themselves, would that be so bad?
I would prefer 10,000 service providers to one big one that gets to read all the plaintext communication of the entire planet.
Grok makes it trivial to create fake CSAM or other explicit images. Before, if someone spent a week on photoshop to do the same, It won't be Adobe that gets the blame.
Same for 3D printers. Before, anyone could make a gun provided they have the right tools (which is very expensive), now it's being argued that 3D printers are making this more accessible. Although I would argue it's always been easy to make a gun, all you need is a piece of pipe. So I don't entirely buy the moral panic against 3D printers.
Where that threshold lies I don't know. But I think that's the crux if it. Technology is making previously difficult things easier, to the benefit of all humanity. It's just unfortunate that some less-nice things have also been included.
Without such clear legal definitions going after Grok while not going after photoshop is just an act of political pressure.
What you’re implying here is that Musk should be immune from any prosecution simply because he is right wing, which…
This isn’t about AI or CSAM (Have we seen any other AI companies raided by governments for enabling creation of deepfakes, dangerous misinformation, illegal images, or for flagrant industrial-scale copyright infringement?)
Do you have any evidence for that? As far as I can tell, this is false. The only thing I saw was Grok changing photos of adults into them wearing bikinis, which is far less bad.
This is how it works, at least in civil law countries. If the prosecutor has reasonable suspicious that a crime is taking place they send the so-called "judiciary police" to gather evidence. If they find none (or they're inconclusive etc...) the charges are dropped, otherwise they ask the court to go to trial.
On some occasions I take on judiciary police duties for animal welfare. Just last week I participated in a raid. We were not there to arrest anyone, just to gather evidence so the prosecutor could decide whether to press charges and go to trial.
For obvious reasons, decent people are not about to go out and try to general child sexual abuse material to prove a point to you, if that’s what you’re asking for.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab
The claim that they released a tool with "seemingly no guardrailes" is therefore clearly false. I think what instead has happened here is that some people found a hack to circumvent some of those guardrails via something like a jailbreak.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo
Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-f...
Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...
This is because of government pressure (see Ofcom link).
I’d say you’re making yourself look foolish but you seem happy to defend nonces so I’ll not waste my time.
That post doesn't contain such an admission, it instead talks about forbidden prompting.
> Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written:
That article links to this article: https://x.com/Safety/status/2011573102485127562 - which contradicts your claim that there were no guardrails before. And as I said, I already tried it a while ago, and Grok also refused to create images of naked adults then.
Says who? Musk?
I wouldn't even consider this a reason if it wasn't for the fact that OpenAI and Google, and hell literally every image model out there all have the same "this guy edited this underage girls face into a bikini" problem (this was the most public example I've heard so I'm going with that as my example). People still jailbreak chatgpt, and they've poured how much money into that?
The dissenting views: naked little kids
What would happen if Volvo made a special baby-killing model with extra spikes?
No, wait, Volvo is European. They'd impose a 300% tariff and direct anyone who wanted a baby-killing model car to buy one from US manufacturers instead.
The rich can join in the austerity too. No one voted for them. We been conditioned to pick acquiescence or poverty. We were abused into kowtowing to a bunch of pants shitting dementia addled olds educated in religious crack pottery. Their economic and political memes are just that, memes, not immutable physical truth.
In America, as evidenced by the public not in the streets protesting for single payer comprehensive healthcare, we clearly don't want to be on the hook for each other's lives. That's all platitudes and toxic positivity.
Hopes and prayers, bloodletting was good enough for the Founders!
So fuck the poor and the rich. Burn it all down.
You would be _amazed_ at the things that people commit to email and similar.
Here's a Facebook one (leaked, not extracted by authorities): https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-...
I assume the raid is hoping to find communications to establish that timeline, maybe internal concerns that were ignored? Also internal metrics that might show they were aware of the problem. External analysts said Grok was generating a CSAM image every minute!!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/02/02/elon-mu...
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/02/02/elon-mu...
That article has no mention of CSAM. As expected, since you can bet the Post has lawyers checking.
What may they find, hypothetically? Who knows, but maybe an internal email saying, for instance, 'Management says keep the nude photo functionality, just hide it behind a feature flag', or maybe 'Great idea to keep a backup of the images, but must cover our tracks', or perhaps 'Elon says no action on Grok nude images, we are officially unaware anything is happening.'
Otoh it is musk.
You're not too far off.
There was a good article in the Washington Post yesterday about many many people inside the company raising alarms about the content and its legal risk, but they were blown off by managers chasing engagement metrics. They even made up a whole new metric.
There was also prompts telling the AI to act angry or sexy or other things just to keep users addicted.
It definitely makes it clear what is expected of AI companies. Your users aren't responsible for what they use your model for, you are, so you'd better make sure your model can't ever be used for anything nefarious. If you can't do that without keeping the model closed and verifying everyone's identities... well, that's good for your profits I guess.
The main problem with the image generators is that they are used to harass and smear people (and children...) Those were always illegal to do.
Everybody else has teams building guardrails to mitigate this fundamental existential horror of these models. Musk fired all the safety people and decided to go all in on “adult” content.
Can't because even before GenAI the "oh its generated in photoshop" or "they just look young" excuse was used successfully to allow a lot of people to walk free. the law was tightend in the early 2000s for precisely this reason
If you want. In many countries the law doesn’t. If you don’t like the law your billion dollar company still has to follow it. At least in theory.
Did X do enough to prevent its website being used to distribute illegal content - consensual sexual material of both adults and children?
Now reintroduce AI generation, where X plays a more active role in facilitating the creation of that illegal content.
There's essentially a push to end the remnants of the free speech Internet by making the medium responsible for the speech of its participants. Let's not pretend otherwise.
In the UK, you must take "reasonable" steps to remove illegal content.
This normally means some basic detection (ie fingerprinting which is widely used from a collaborative database) or if a user is consistently uploading said stuff, banning them.
Allowing a service that you run to continue to generate said illegal content, even after you publicly admit that you know its wrong, is not reasonable.
Judges can evolve and interpret as they see fit, and this evolution is case law.
This is why in the US the supreme court can effectively change the law by issuing a binding ruling. (see 2nd amendment meaning no gun laws, rather than as written, or the recent racial profiling issues)
this is not compatible with that line of business - perhaps one of the reasons nothing is done in Europe these days
The vast majority of the EU is not common law, so "reasonable" in this instance is different.
What you describe already happens in the USA, that why MLB has that weird local TV blackout, why bad actors use copyright to take down content they don't like.
The reason why its so easy to do that is because companies must reasonably comply with copyright holder's requests.
Its the same with CSAM, distributing it doesn't have first amendment protection, knowingly distributing it is illegal. All reasonable steps should be taken to detect and remove CSAM from your systems to qualify for safe harbour.
> Its the same with CSAM, distributing it doesn't have first amendment protection, knowingly distributing it is illegal. All reasonable steps should be taken to detect and remove CSAM from your systems to qualify for safe harbour.
nice try, but nobody is distributing or hosting CSAM in the current conversation
people trying to trick a bot to post bikini pictures of preteens and blaming the platform for it is a ridiculous stretch to the concept of hosting CSAM, which really is a transparent attack to a perceived political opponent to push for a completely different model of the internet to the pre-existing one, a transition that is as obvious as is already advanced in Europe and most of the so-called Anglosphere
> The vast majority of the EU is not common law, so "reasonable" in this instance is different.
the vast majority of the EU is perhaps incompatible with any workable notion of free speech, so perhaps America will have to choose whether it's worth it to sanction them into submission, or cut them off at considerable economic loss
it's not a coincidence that next to nothing is built in Europe these days, the environment is one of fear and stifling regulation and if I were to actually release anything in either AI or social networks I'd do what most of my fellow Brits/Europoors do already, which is to either sell to America or flee this place before I get big enough to show up in the euro-borg's radar
multiple agencies (Ofcom, irish police IWF, and what ever the french regulator is) have detected CSAM.
You may disagree with that statement, but bear in mind the definition of CSAM in the UK is "depiction of a child" which means that if its of a child or entirely generated is not relevant. This was to stop people claiming that massive cache of child porn they had was photoshoped.
in the USA CSAM is equally vaguely defined, but the case law is different.
> EU is perhaps incompatible with any workable notion of free speech
I mean the ECHR definition is fairly robust. But given that first amendment protection has effectively ended in the USA (the president is currently threatening to take a comedian to court for making jokes, you know, like the twitter bomb threat person in the UK) its a bit rich really. The USA is not the bastion of free speech it once was.
> either sell to America or flee this place before I get big enough to show up in the euro-borg's radar
Mate, as someone whos sold a startup to the USA, its not about regulations its about cold hard fucking cash. All major companies comply with EU regs, and its not hard. they just bitch about them so that the USA doesn't put in basic data protection laws, so they can continue to be monopolies.
Yes they could have an uncensored model, but then they would need proper moderation and delete this kind of content instantly or ban users that produce it. Or don’t allow it in the first place.
It doesn’t matter how CSAM is produced, the only thing that matters is that is on the platform.
I am flabbergasted people even defend this
If it was about blocking the social media they'd just block it, like they did with Russia Today, CUII-Liste Lina, or Pavel Durov.
Firstly does the open model explicitly/tacitly allow CSAM generation?
Secondly, when the trainers are made aware of the problem, do they ignore it or attempt to put in place protections?
Thirdly, do they pull in data that is likely to allow that kind of content to be generated?
Fourthly, when they are told that this is happening, do they pull the model?
Fithly, do they charge for access/host the service and allow users to generate said content on their own servers?
I wonder where all these people - and the French government - has been in the past 3 decades where kids did the same thing with Photoshop.
But this is about hosting a model with allegedly insufficient safeguards against harassing and child-sexualizing images, isn't it?
Correct comparison would be:
You provide a photo studio with an adjacent art gallery and allow people to shoot CSAM content there and then exhibit their work.
And the camera is pointing out the window so you can use it on strangers walking by.
There is a point in law where you make something so easy to misuse that you become liable for the misuse.
In the USA they have "attractive nuisance", like building a kid's playground on top of a pit of snakes. That's so obviously a dumb idea that you become liable for the snake–bitten kids — you can't save yourself by arguing that you didn't give the kids permission to use the playground, that it's on private property, that the kids should have seen the snakes, or that it's legal to own snakes. No, you set up a situation where people were obviously going to get hurt and you become liable for the hurt.
The brother of said owner and board member of X / Grok, procured girls through said convicted pedophile.
X / Grok create a child porn generator.
Nothing to see here, move on. I can't believe you guys are still talking about that woke leftist hoax that I spent years telling you was a conspiracy and a coverup that went to the highest levels of the <other side> elites.
Seems like you'd want to subpoena source code or gmail history or something like that. Not much interesting in an office these days.
The warrant will have detailed what it is they are looking for, French warrants (and legal system!) are quite a bit different than the US but in broad terms operate similarly. It suggests that an enforcement agency believes that there is evidence of a crime at the offices.
As a former IT/operations guy I'd guess they want on-prem servers with things like email and shared storage, stuff that would hold internal discussions about the thing they were interested in, but that is just my guess based on the article saying this is related to the earlier complaint that Grok was generating CSAM on demand.
For a net company in 2026? Fat chance.
[1] This was also something Google did which was change access rights for people in the China office that were not 'vetted' (for some definition of vetted) feeling like they could be an exfiltration risk. Imagine a DGSE agent under cover as an X employee who carefully puts a bunch of stuff on a server in the office (doesn't trigger IT controls) and then lets the prosecutors know its ready and they serve the warrant.
That's aside from the fact that they're a publicly traded company under obligation to keep a gazillion records anyway like in any other jurisdiction.
Which company is publicly traded?
... within 30 days, right? The longest "raid" in history.
Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to place his kids into foster care.
That was legal. Guess what, similar things would be legal in France.
We all forget that money is nice, but nation states have real power. Western liberal democracies just rarely use it.
The same way the president of the USA can order a Drone strike on a Taliban war lord, the president of France could order Musks plane to be escorted to Paris by 3 Fighter jets.
Interesting point. There's a top gangster who can buy anything in the prison commissary; and then there's the warden.
I remember something (probably linked from here), where the essayist was comparing Jack Ma, one of the richest men on earth, and Xi Jinping, a much lower-paid individual.
They indicated that Xi got Ma into a chokehold. I think he "disappeared" Ma for some time. Don't remember exactly how long, but it may have been over a year.
But China is different. Not sure most of western europe will go that far in most cases.
https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/venezuela-survey-trump-ma...
But the celebratory pics, which were claimed to be from Venezuela, but were actually from Miami and elsewhere (including, I kid you not, an attempt to pass off Argentine's celebrating a Copa America win) ... that is indicative of "the vast majority of Venezuela"?
If I were smarter, I might start to wonder why, if President Maduro was so unpopular, why would his abductors have to resort to fake footage - which was systematically outed & destroyed by independent journalists within 24 hours? I mean, surely, enough real footage should exist.
Probably better not to have inconvenient non-US-approved independent thoughts like that.
Color me surprised.
https://www.tampafp.com/rand-paul-and-marco-rubio-clash-over...
To me, that's the distinction between political opponents I can respect, and, well, whatever we're seeing now.
You got this information from American media (or their allies')
In reality, Venezuelans flooded the streets in marches demanding the return of their president.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Claim that you suspect there may be abuse, it will trigger a case for a "worrying situation".
Then it's a procedural lottery:
-> If you get lucky, they will investigate, meet the people, and dismiss the case.
-> If you get unlucky, they will take the baby, and it's only then after a long investigation and a "family assistant" (that will check you every day), that you can recover your baby.
Typically, ex-wife who doesn't like the ex-husband, but it can be a neighbor etc.
One worker explains that they don't really have time to investigate when processing reports: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG9y_-4kGQA and they have to act very fast, and by default, it is safer to remove from family.
The boss of such agency doesn't even take the time to answer to the journalists there...
-> Example of such case (this man is innocent): https://www.lefigaro.fr/faits-divers/var-un-homme-se-mobilis...
but I can't blame them either, it's not easy to make the right calls.
[0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-mom-cfs-bac...
[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ariha-family-visit-t...
If you call 119 it gets assessed and potentially forwarded to the right department, which then assesses it again and might (quite likely will) trigger an inspection. The people who turn up have broad powers to seize children from the home in order to protect them from abuse.
In general this works fine. Unfortunately in some circumstances this does give a very low skilled/paid person (the inspector) a lot of power, and a lot of sway with judges. If this person is bad at their job for whatever reason (incompetence/malice) it can cause a lot of problems. It is very hard to prove a person like this wrong when they are covering their arse after making a mistake.
afaik similar systems are present in most western countries, and many of them - like France - are suffering with funding and are likely cutting in the wrong place (audit/rigour) to meet external KPIs. One of the worst ways this manifests is creating 'quick scoring' methods which can end up with misunderstandings (e.g. said a thing they didn't mean) ranking very highly, but subtle evidence of abuse moderate to low.
So while this is a concern, this is not unique to France, this is relatively normal, and the poster is massively exaggerating the simplicity.
There was a huge mess right after metoo when a inspector went against the courts rulings. The court had given the father sole custody in a extremely messy divorce, and the inspector did not agree with the decision. As a result they remove the child from his father, in direct contrast to the courts decision, and put the child through 6 years of isolation and abuse with no access to school. It took investigative journalists a while, but the result of the case getting highlighted in media was that the inspector and supervisor is now fired, with two additoal workers being under investigation for severe misconduct. Four more workers would be under investigation but too long time has passed. The review board should have prevented this, as should the supervisor for the inspector, but those safety net failed in this case in part because of the cultural environment at the time.
This seems guaranteed to occur every year then… since incompetence/malice will happen eventually with thousands upon thousands of cases?
Not at all. This job will go to an "AI" any moment now.
/i
"today it's my husband to take care of him because sometimes my baby makes me angry that I want to kill him"
-> Whoops, someone talked with 119 to refer a "worrying" situation, baby removed. It's already two years.
There are some non-profit fighting against such: https://lenfanceaucoeur.org/quest-ce-que-le-placement-abusif...
That being said, it's a very small % obviously not let's not exaggerate but it's quite sneaky.
I'm sure they have much better and quieter ways to do that.
Whereas a raid is #1 choice for max volume...
I mean, if you're a sole caretaker and you've been arrested for a crime, and the evidence looks like you'll go to prison, you're going to have to decide what to do with the care of your kids on your mind. I suppose that would pressure you to become an informant instead of taking a longer prison sentence, but there's pressure to do that anyway, like not wanting to be in prison for a long time.
Elon has ICBMs, but France has warheads.
>That was legal. Guess what, similar things would be legal in France.
lawfare is... good now? Between Trump being hit with felony charges for falsifying business records (lawfare is good?) and Lisa Cook getting prosecuted for mortgage fraud (lawfare is bad?), I honestly lost track at this point.
>The same way the president of the USA can order a Drone strike on a Taliban war lord, the president of France could order Musks plane to be escorted to Paris by 3 Fighter jets.
What's even the implication here? That they're going to shoot his plane down? If there's no threat of violence, what does the French government even hope to achieve with this?
Again: the threat is so clear that you rarely have to execute on it.
That's not a credible threat because there's approximately 0% chance France would actually follow through with it. Not even Trump would resort to murder to get rid of his domestic adversaries. As we seen the fed, the best he could muster are some spurious prosecutions. France murdering someone would put them on par with Russia or India.
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html...
If captain of the plane disobeyed direct threat like that from a nation, his career is going to be limited. Yeah Elon might throw money at him but that guy is most likely never allowed again to fly near any French territory. I guess whole cabin crew as well .
Being clear for flying anywhere in the world is their job.
Would be quite stupid to loose it like truck driver DUI getting his license revoked.
>If captain of the plane disobeyed direct threat like that from a nation, his career is going to be limited. Yeah Elon might throw money at him but that guy is most likely never allowed again to fly near any French territory. I guess whole cabin crew as well .
Again, what's France trying to do? Refuse entry to France? Why do they need to threaten shooting down his jet for that? Just harassing/pranking him (eg. "haha got you good with that jet lmao")?
Don't give them ideas
Well, when everything is lawfare it logically follows that it won't always be good or always be bad. It seems Al Capone being taken down for tax fraud would similarly be lawfare by these standards, or am I missing something? Perhaps lawfare (sometimes referred to as "prosecuting criminal charges", as far as I can tell, given this context) is just in some cases and unjust in others.
Also, they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents have rights and due process.
> Sabu was put under pressure by the FBI, they threatened to place his kids into foster care.
Though things like that can happen, which are very serious.
As they say: you can beat the rap but not the ride. If a state wants to make your life incredibly difficult for months or even years they can, the competent ones can even do it while staying (mostly) on the right side of the law.
People are putting a lot of weight on the midterm elections which are more or less the last line of defense besides a so far tepid response by the courts and even then consequence free defiance of court orders is now rampant.
We're really near the point of no return and a lot of people don't seem to notice.
A lot of people are cheering it (some on this very site).
It's a nice sentiment, if true. ICE is out there, right now today, ignoring both individual rights as well as due process.
/s
As we're seeing with the current US President... the government doesn't (have to) care.
In any case, CSAM is the one thing other than Islamist terrorism that will bypass a lot of restrictions on how police are supposed to operate (see e.g. Encrochat, An0m) across virtually all civilized nations. Western nations also will take anything that remotely smells like Russia as a justification.
Well, that's particular to the US. It just shows that checks and balances are not properly implemented there, just previous presidents weren't exploiting it maliciously for their own gains.
That due process only exists to the extent the branches of govt are independent, have co-equal power, and can hold and act upon different views of the situation.
When all branches of govt are corrupted or corrupted to serve the executive, as in autocracies, that due process exists only if the executive likes you, or accepts your bribes. That is why there is such a huge push by right-wing parties to take over the levers of power, so they can keep their power even after they would lose at the ballot box.
This is pretty messed up btw.
Social work for children systems in the USA are very messed up. It is not uncommon for minority families to lose rights to parent their children for very innocuous things that would not happen to a non-oppressed class.
It is just another way for the justice/legal system to pressure families that have not been convicted / penalized under the supervision of a court.
And this isn't the only lever they use.
Every time I read crap like this I just think of Aaron Swartz.
Depends on how much faith you have in the current administration. Russia limits presidents to two 6-year terms, yet Putin is in power since 2000.
Yes, he is in power since 2000 (1999, actually) but 1999-2012 he was Prime Minister. Only then he became President, which would make the end of his second term 2024. So the current one would be his third term (by the magic of changing the constitution and legal quibbles which effectively allow a president to stay in charge for four almost whole terms, AFAIU).
EU, maybe not. France? A nuclear state? Paris is properly sovereign.
> people with strong support of the current government
Also known as leverage.
Let Musk off the hook for a sweetheart trade deal. Trump has a track record of chickening out when others show strength.
That is true. But nukes are not magic. Explain to me how you imagine the series of events where Paris uses their nukes to get the USA to extradite Elon to Paris. Because i’m just not seeing it.
Paris doesn’t need to back down. And it can independently exert effort in a way other European countries can’t. Musk losing Paris means swearing off a meaningful economic and political bloc.
At this point a nuclear power like France has no issue with using covert violence to produce compliance from Musk and he must know it.
These people have proven themselves to be existential threats to French security and France will do whatever they feel is necessary to neutralize that threat.
Musk is free to ignore French rule of law if he wants to risk being involved in an airplane accident that will have rumours and conspiracies swirling around it long after he’s dead and his body is strewn all over the ocean somewhere.
OpenDNS is censored in France... so imagine
Seriously, every powerful state engages in state terrorism from time to time because they can, and the embarrassment of discovery is weighed against the benefit of eliminating a problem. France is no exception : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
It's just that the West has avoided to do that to each other because they were all essentially allied until recently and because the political implications were deemed too severe.
I don't think however France has anything to win by doing it or has any interest whatsoever and I doubt there's a legal framework the French government can or want to exploit to conduct something like that legally (like calling something an emergency situation or a terrorist group, for example).
Why not? After all, that's in vogue today. Trump is ignoring all the international agreements and rules, so why should others follow them?
The second Donald Trump threatened to invade a nation allied with France is the second anyone who works with Trump became a legitimate military target.
Like a cruel child dismembering a spider one limb at a time France and other nations around the world will meticulously destroy whatever resources people like Musk have and the influence it gives him over their countries.
If Musk displays a sufficient level of resistance to these actions the French will simply assassinate him.
PS Yes, Greenpeace is a bunch of scientifically-illiterate fools who have caused far more damage than they prevented. Doesn't matter because what France did was still clearly against the law.
You don't get to say no to these things.
What happened to due process? Every major firm should have a "dawn raid" policy to comply while preserving rights.
Specific to the Uber case(s), if it were illegal, then why didn't Uber get criminal charges or fines?
At best there's an argument that it was "obstructing justice," but logging people off, encrypting, and deleting local copies isn't necessarily illegal.
They had a sweet deal with Macron. Prosecution became hard to continue once he got involved.
Or they had a weak case. Prosecutors even drop winnable cases because they don't want to lose.
[1]: https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2022/07/10/uber-files-...
[2]: https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/le-rapport-d-enquete-...
Put this up there with nonsensical phrases like "violent agreement."
;-)
I don't see aggressive compliance defined anywhere. Violent agreement has definitions, but it feels like it's best defined as a consulting buzzword.
They will explain that it was done remotely and whatnot but then the company will be closed in the country. Whether this matters for the mothership is another story.
Elon would love it. So it won't happen.
Elon probably isn’t paying them enough to be the lightning rod for the current cross-Atlantic tension.
This was a common action during the Russian invasion of Ukraine for companies that supported Ukraine and closed their operations in Russia.
Covered here: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/jul/10/uber-bosses-tol...
Obviously, the government can just threaten to fine you any amount, close operations or whatever, but your company can just decide to stop operating there, like Google after Russia imposed an absurd fine.
As France discovered the hard way in WW2, you can put all sorts of rock-solid security around the front door only to be surprised when your opponent comes in by window.
What, thinking HQ wouldn't cancel them?
EDIT: It seems from other comments that it may have been Uber I was reading about. The badging system I have personally observed outside the Gigafactories. Apologies for the mixup.
I think as far as Musk is concerned, laws only apply in the "don't get caught" sense.
-> crimes ? what crimes ?
I assume that they have opened a formal investigation and are now going to the office to collect/perloin evidence before it's destroyed.
Most FAANG companies have training specifically for this. I assume X doesn't anymore, because they are cool and edgy, and staff training is for the woke.
“Google intended to subvert the discovery process, and that Chat evidence was ‘lost with the intent to prevent its use in litigation’ and ‘with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation.’”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.37...
VW is another case where similar things happens:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-12/vw-offici...
The thing is: Companies don’t got to jail, employees do.
I didn't work anywhere near the level, or anything thats dicey where I needed to have a "oh shit delete everything the Feds are here" plan. Which is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (I'm not sure what the common law/legal code name for that is)
The stuff I worked on was legal and in the spirit of the law, along with a paper trail (that I also still have) proving that.
Prosecution must present a valid search warrant for *specific* information. They don't get a carte blanche, so uber way is correct. lock computers and lets the courts to decide.
In the civil code, its quite possibly different. The french have had ~ 3 constitutions in the last 80 years. The also dont have the concept of case history. who knows what the law actually is.
mine had a scene where some bro tried to organise the resistance. A voice over told us that he was arrested for blocking a legal investigation and was liable for being fired due to reputational damage.
X's training might be like you described, but everywhere else that is vaguely beholden to law and order would be opposite.
This would be done in parallel for key sources.
There is a lot of information on physical devices that is helpful, though. Even discovering additional apps and services used on the devices can lead to more discovery via those cloud services, if relevant.
Physical devices have a lot of additional information, though: Files people are actively working on, saved snippets and screenshots of important conversations, and synced data that might be easier to get offline than through legal means against the providers.
In outright criminal cases it's not uncommon for individuals to keep extra information on their laptop, phone, or a USB drive hidden in their office as an insurance policy.
This is yet another good reason to keep your work and personal devices separate, as hard as that can be at times. If there's a lawsuit you don't want your personal laptop and phone to disappear for a while.
In these situations, refusing to provide those keys or passwords is an offense.
The employees who just want to do their job and collect a paycheck aren’t going to prison to protect their employer by refusing to give the password to their laptop.
The teams that do this know how to isolate devices to avoid remote kill switches. If someone did throw a remote kill switch, that’s destruction of evidence and a serious crime by itself. Again, the IT guy isn’t going to risk prison to wipe company secrets.
Yes.
lol, they summoned Elon for a hearing on 420
"Summons for voluntary interviews on April 20, 2026, in Paris have been sent to Mr. Elon Musk and Ms. Linda Yaccarino, in their capacity as de facto and de jure managers of the X platform at the time of the events,
Given his recent "far right" bromance that's probably not a good idea ;)
When Bernhard Hugo Goetz shot four teenagers on an NYC subway in the 80s, his PCP-laced marijuana use and stash back at his apartment came up in both sets of trials in the 80s and later in the 90s.
It was ignored (although not the alleged drug use of the teenagers) as Goetz was dubbed The Subway Vigilante and became a hero to the right.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...
His victims were upscaled to "super predators".
Most likely, it's Hitler's birthday after all
I'm not at all familiar with French law, and I don't have any sympathy for Elon Musk or X. That said, is this a crime?
Distorted the operation how? By making their chatbot more likely to say stupid conspiracies or something? Is that even against the law?
The way chatbots actually work, I wonder if we shouldn't treat the things they say more or less as words in a book of fiction. Writing a character in your novel who is a plain parody of David Irving probably isn't a crime even in France. Unless the goal of the book as such was to deny the holocaust.
As I see it, Grok can't be guilty. Either the people who made it/set its system prompt are guilty, if they wanted it to deny the holocaust. If not, they're at worst guilty of making a particularly unhinged fiction machine (as opposed to the more restrained fiction machines of Google, Anthropic etc.)
> complicité de détention d’images de mineurs présentant un caractère pédopornographique
> complicité de diffusion, offre ou mise à disposition en bande organisée d'image de mineurs présentant un caractère pédopornographique
[1]: https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files...
Sorry, but that's a major translation error. "pédopornographique" properly translated is child porn, not child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The difference is huge.
> The term “child pornography” is currently used in federal statutes and is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old. While this phrase still appears in federal law, “child sexual abuse material” is preferred, as it better reflects the abuse that is depicted in the images and videos and the resulting trauma to the child. In fact, in 2016, an international working group, comprising a collection of countries and international organizations working to combat child exploitation, formally recognized “child sexual abuse material” as the preferred term.
Child porn is csam.
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/child_sexual_abuse_materi...
GDPR and DMA actually have teeth. They just haven't been shown yet because the usual M.O. for European law violators is first, a free reminder "hey guys, what you're doing is against the law, stop it, or else". Then, if violations continue, maybe two or three rounds follow... but at some point, especially if the violations are openly intentional (and Musk's behavior makes that very very clear), the hammer gets brought down.
Our system is based on the idea that we institute complex regulations, and when they get introduced and stuff goes south, we assume that it's innocent mistakes first.
And in addition to that, there's the geopolitical aspect... basically, hurt Musk to show Trump that, yes, Europe means business and has the means to fight back.
As for the allegations:
> The probe has since expanded to investigate alleged “complicity” in spreading pornographic images of minors, sexually explicit deepfakes, denial of crimes against humanity and manipulation of an automated data processing system as part of an organised group, and other offences, the office said in a statement Tuesday.
The GDPR/DMA stuff just was the opener anyway. CSAM isn't liked by authorities at all, and genocide denial (we're not talking about Palestine here, calm your horses y'all, we're talking about Holocaust denial) is a crime in most European jurisdiction (in addition to doing the right-arm salute and other displays of fascist insignia). We actually learned something out of WW2.
...but then other commenters reminded me there is another thing on the same date, which might have been more the actual troll at Elmo to get him all worked up
I believe people are looking too much into 20 April → 4/20 → 420
No. It's 20 April in the rest of the world: 204.
When they’re both private, fine, whatever.
I don't love heavy-handed enforcement on speech issues, but I do really like a heterogenous cultural situation, so I think it's interesting and probably to the overall good to have a country pushing on these matters very hard, just as a matter of keeping a diverse set of global standards, something that adds cultural resilience for humanity.
linkedin is not a replacement for twitter, though. I'm curious if they'll come back post-settlement.
CSAM is banned speech.
Libel must be as assertion that is not true. Photoshopping or AIing someone isn't an assertion of something untrue. It's more the equivalent of saying "What if this is true?" which is perfectly legal
Marginal note:Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or
(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.”
In the US it varies by state but generally requires:
A false statement of fact (not opinion, hyperbole, or pure insinuation without a provably false factual core).
Publication to a third party.
Fault
Harm to reputation
----
In the US it is required that it is written (or in a fixed form). If it's not written (fixed), it's slander, not libel.
Quite.
> That's why some countries, notably Japan, allow the production of hand-drawn material that in the US would be considered CSAM.
Really? By what US definition of CSAM?
https://rainn.org/get-the-facts-about-csam-child-sexual-abus...
"Child sexual abuse material (CSAM) is not “child pornography.” It’s evidence of child sexual abuse—and it’s a crime to create, distribute, or possess. "
Censorship increases homogeneity, because it reduces the amount of ideas and opinions that are allowed to be expressed. The only resilience that comes from restricting people's speech is resilience of the people in power.
Humanity itself is trending more toward monoculture socially; I like a lot of things (and hate some) about the cultural trend. But what I like isn't very important, because I might be totally wrong in my likes; if only my likes dominated, the world would be a much less resilient place -- vulnerable to the weaknesses of whatever it is I like.
So, again, I propose for the race as a whole, broad cultural diversity is really critical, and worth protecting. Even if we really hate some of the forms it takes.
Durov was held on suspicion Telegram was willingly failing to moderate its platform and allowed drug trafficking and other illegal activities to take place.
X has allegedly illegally sent data to the US in violation of GDPR and contributed to child porn distribution.
Note that both are directly related to direct violation of data safety law or association with a separate criminal activities, neither is about speech.
CSAM was the lead in the 2024 news headlines in the French prosecution of Telegram also. I didn't follow the case enough to know where they went, or what the judge thought was credible.
From a US mindset, I'd say that generation of communication, including images, would fall under speech. But then we classify it very broadly here. Arranging drug deals on a messaging app definitely falls under the concept of speech in the US as well. Heck, I've been told by FBI agents that they believe assassination markets are legal in the US - protected speech.
Obviously, assassinations themselves, not so much.
I don't believe you. Not sure what you mean by "assassination markets" exactly, but "Solicitation to commit a crime of violence" and "Conspiracy to murder" are definitely crimes.
One of my portfolio companies had information about contributors to these markets — I was told by my FBI contact when I got in touch that their view was the creation of the market, the funding of the market and the descriptions were all legal — they declined to follow up.
Durov wasn't arrested because of things he said or things that were said on his platform, he was arrested because he refused to cooperate in criminal investigations while he allegedly knew they were happening on a platform he manages.
If you own a bar, you know people are dealing drugs in the backroom and you refuse to assist the police, you are guilty of aiding and abetting. Well, it's the same for Durov except he apparently also helped them process the money.
There's someone who was being held responsible for what was in encrypted chats.
Then there's someone who published depictions of sexual abuse and minors.
Worlds apart.
They can read all messages, so they don't have an excuse for not helping in a criminal case. Their platform had a reputation of being safe for crime, which is because they just... ignored the police. Until they got arrested for that. They still turn a blind eye but not to the police.
Anyway cut to the chase, I just checked out Mathew Greens post on the subject, he is on my list of default "trust what he says about cryptography" along with some others like djb, nadia henninger etc
Embarrased to say I did not realise, I should of known! 10+ years ago I used to lurk the IRC dev chans of every relevant cypherpunk project, including of text secure and otr-chat when I saw signal being made and before that was witnessing chats with devs and ian goldberg and stuff, I just assumed Telegram was multiparty OTR,
OOPS!
Long winded post because that is embarrassing (as someone who studied cryptography undergrad in 2009 mathematics, 2010 did postgrad wargames and computer security course and worse - whose word once about 2012-2013 was taken on these matters by activists, journalists, researchers with pretty knarly threat model - like for instance - some guardian stories and former researcher into torture - i'm also the person that wrote the bits of 'how to hold a crypto party' that made it a protocol without an organisation and made clear the threat model was anyone could be there, oops oops oops
Yes thanks for letting me know I hang my head in shame for missing that one or some how believing that one without much investigation, thankfully it was just my own personal use to contact like friend in the states where they aren't already on signal etc.
EVERYONE: DON'T TRUST TELEGRAM AS END TO END ENCRYPTED CHAT https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2024/08/25/telegram...
Anyway as they say "use it or lose it" yeah my assumptions here no longer valid or considered to have educated opinion if I got something that basic wrong.
Why isn't that a major red flag exactly?
Or is there any France-specific compliance that must be done in order to operate in that country?
The onus is on the contractor to make sure any classified information is kept securely. If by raiding an office in France a bunch of US military secrets are found, it would suggest the company is not fit to have those kind of contracts.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/us...
People who have found exploits, just like other generative AI tool.
The charges are made up baloney, the victims don't exist, it's just more IP theft and cash grab.
I mean, perhaps it's time to completely drop these US-owned, closed-source, algo-driven controversial platforms, and start treating the communication with the public that funds your existence in different terms. The goal should be to reach as many people, of course, but also to ensure that the method and medium of communication is in the interest of the public at large.
... thereby driving up adoption far better than Twitter itself could. Ironic or what.
I think we are getting very close the the EU's own great firewall.
There is currently a sort of identity crisis in the regulation. Big tech companies are breaking the laws left and right. So which is it?
- fine harvesting mechanism? Keep as-is.
- true user protection? Blacklist.
Who decides what communication is in the interest of the public at large? The Trump administration?
I suppose the answer, if we're serious about it, is somewhat more nuanced.
To begin, public administrations should not get to unilaterally define "the public interest" in their communication, nor should private platforms for that matter. Assuming we're still talking about a democracy, the decision-making should be democratically via a combination of law + rights + accountable institutions + public scrutiny, with implementation constraints that maximise reach, accessibility, auditability, and independence from private gatekeepers. The last bit is rather relevant, because the private sector's interests and the citizen's interests are nearly always at odds in any modern society, hence the state's roles as rule-setter (via democratic processes) and arbiter. Happy to get into further detail regarding the actual processes involved, if you're genuinely interested.
That aside - there are two separate problems that often get conflated when we talk about these platforms:
- one is reach: people are on Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, so publishing there increases distribution; public institutions should be interested in reaching as many citizens as possible with their comms;
- the other one is dependency: if those become the primary or exclusive channels, the state's relationship with citizens becomes contingent on private moderation, ranking algorithms, account lockouts, paywalls, data extraction, and opaque rule changes. That is entirely and dangerously misaligned with democratic accountability.
A potential middle position could be ti use commercial social platforms as secondary distribution instead of the authoritative channel, which in reality is often the case. However, due to the way societies work and how individuals operate within them, the public won't actually come across the information until it's distributed on the most popular platforms. Which is why some argue that they should be treated as public utilities since dominant communications infrastructure has quasi-public function (rest assured, I won't open that can of worms right now).
Politics is messy in practice, as all balancing acts are - a normal price to pay for any democratic society, I'd say. Mix that with technology, social psychology and philosophies of liberty, rights, and wellbeing, and you have a proper head-scratcher on your hands. We've already done a lot to balance these, for sure, but we're not there yet and it's a dynamic, developing field that presents new challenges.
In practice the information is disseminated through many channels once it's released in the official newspaper. Mass media reports on anything widely relevant, niche media reports on things nichely relevant, and there's direct communication with anyone directly affected (recipient of a radio frequency allocation) so nobody really subscribes to the official government newspaper, but it's there and if there was a breakdown of communication systems that would be the last resort to ensure you are getting government updates.
"Uh guys, little heads up: there are some agents of federal law enforcement raiding the premises, so if you see that. That’s what that is."
* They exchanged various emails between 2012 and 2014 about Elon visiting the island
* They made plans for Elon to visit the island
* We don't know if Elon actually followed through on those plans and he denies it
I think it's premature to say he didn't go, and the latest batches of emails directly contradict the claim he wasn't ever invited.
See https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/30/epstein-files-show-elon-musk...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/15/elon-musk...
We don't know how many were pedo/rapists, but we know all of them liked to socialize with one and trade favours and spread his influence.
Oops... yeah, in retrospect it was even worse... no... you can and should be judged by the friends you keep and hang-out with... The same ones who seem to be circling the wagons with innocuous statements or attempts to find other scapegoats (DARVO)... hmm, what was that quote again:
"We must all hang together or we will all hang separately"
No abuse of a real minor is needed.
Strange that there was no disagreement before "AI", right? Yet now we have a clutch of new "definitions" all of which dilute and weaken the meaning.
> In Sweden for instance, CSAM is any image of an underage subject (real or realistic digital) designed to evoke a sexual response.
No corroboration found on web. Quite the contrary, in fact:
"Sweden does not have a legislative definition of child sexual abuse material (CSAM)"
https://rm.coe.int/factsheet-sweden-the-protection-of-childr...
> If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM.
> No abuse of a real minor is needed.
Even the Google "AI" knows better than that. CSAM "is considered a record of a crime, emphasizing that its existence represents the abuse of a child."
Putting a bikini on a photo of a child may be distasteful abuse of a photo, but it is not abuse of a child - in any current law.
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/sven...
A person who
1. depicts a child in a pornographic image,
2. disseminates, transfers, provides, exhibits, or otherwise makes such an image of a child available to another person,
3. acquires or offers such an image of a child,
4. facilitates contacts between buyers and sellers of such images of children or takes any other similar measure intended to promote trade in such images, or
5. possesses such an image of a child or views such an image to which he or she has gained access
shall be sentenced for a child pornography offense to imprisonment for at most two years.
Then there's Proposition 2009/10:70, which is a clarifying document on how the law should be interpreted:
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/prop...
Let me quote (translated):
"To depict a child in a pornographic image entails the production of such an image of a child. An image can be produced in various ways, e.g., by photographing, filming, or drawing a real child. Through various techniques, more or less artificial images can also be created. For criminal liability, it is not required that the image depicts a real child; images of fictitious children are also covered. New productions can also be created by reproducing or manipulating already existing depictions, for example, by editing film sequences together in a different order or by splicing an image of a child’s head onto an image of another child’s body."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/93/oj/eng
Let me quote again: Pay attention to c.iv specifically:
(c) ‘child pornography’ means:
(i) any material that visually depicts a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct;
(ii) any depiction of the sexual organs of a child for primarily sexual purposes;
(iii) any material that visually depicts any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct or any depiction of the sexual organs of any person appearing to be a child, for primarily sexual purposes; or
(iv) realistic images of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
Are you from Sweden? Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"? Or is it some USDefaultism where Americans assume their definition was universal?
No. I used this interweb thing to fetch that document from Sweden, saving me a 1000-mile walk.
> Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"?
I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement.
And I said that because I saw only agreement. CSAM == child sexual abuse material == a record of child sexual abuse.
So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition?
" I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement. "
Sorry, there are lots of different judical definitions about CSAM in different countries, each with different edge cases and how to handle them. I very doubt it, there is a disaggrement.
But my guess about your post is, that an American has to learn again there is a world outside of the US with different rules and different languages.
I guess you didn't read the doc. It is in English.
I too doubt there's material disagreement between judicial definitions. The dubious definitions I'm referring to are the non-judicial fabrications behind accusations such as the root of this subthread.
Sources? Sorry , your gut feeling does not matter. Esspecially if you are not a lawyer
Feel free to share any you've seen.
Please don't use the "knowledge" of LLMs as evidence or support for anything. Generative models generate things that have some likelihood of being consistent with their input material, they don't "know" things.
Just last night, I did a Google search related to the cell tower recently constructed next to our local fire house. Above the search results, Gemini stated that the new tower is physically located on the Facebook page of the fire department.
Does this support the idea that "some physical cell towers are located on Facebook pages"? It does not. At best, it supports that the likelihood that the generated text is completely consistent with the model's input is less than 100% and/or that input to the model was factually incorrect.
It has been since at least 2012 here in Sweden. That case went to our highest court and they decided a manga drawing was CSAM (maybe you are hung up on this term though, it is obviously not the same in Swedish).
The holder was not convicted but that is besides the point about the material.
This one?
"Swedish Supreme Court Exonerates Manga Translator Of Porn Charges"
https://bleedingcool.com/comics/swedish-supreme-court-exoner...
It has zero bearing on the "Putting a bikini on a photo of a child ... is not abuse of a child" you're challenging.
> and they decided a manga drawing was CSAM
No they did not. They decided "may be considered pornographic". A far lesser offence than CSAM.
https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/5f881006d4d346b199ca...
> Även en bild där ett barn t.ex. genom speciella kameraarrangemang framställs på ett sätt som är ägnat att vädja till sexualdriften, utan att det avbildade barnet kan sägas ha deltagit i ett sexuellt beteende vid avbildningen, kan omfattas av bestämmelsen.
Which translated means that the children does not have to be apart of sexual acts and indeed undressing a child using AI could be CSAM.
I say "could" because all laws are open to interpretation in Sweden and it depends on the specific image. But it's safe to say that many images produces by Grok are CSAM by Swedish standards.
Because that is up to the courts to interpret. You cant use your common law experience to interpret the law in other countries.
That interpretation wasn't mine. It came from the Court of Europe doc I linked to. Feel free to let them know its wrong.
I suspect none of us are lawyers with enough legal knowledge of the French law to know the specifics of this case
You should realize that children have committed suicide before because AI deepfakes of themselves have been spread around schools. Just because these images are "fake" doesn't mean they're not abuse, and that there aren't real victims.
Not at all. I am saying just it is not CSAM.
> You should realize that children have committed suicide before because AI deepfakes of themselves have been spread around schools.
Its terrible. And when "AI"s are found spreading deepfakes around schools, do let us know.
When you undress a child with AI, especially publicly on Twitter or privately through DM, that child is abused using the material the AI generated. Therefore CSAM.
I guess you mean pasting a naked body on a photo of a child.
> especially publicly on Twitter or privately through DM, that child is abused using the material the AI generated.
In which country is that?
Here in UK, I've never heard of anyone jailed for doing that. Whereas many are for making actual child sexual abuse material.
Musk's social media platform has recently been subject to intense scrutiny over sexualised images generated and edited on the site using its AI tool Grok.
Good luck with that...
and the things about negligence which caused harm to humans (instead of e.g. just financial harm) is that
a) you can't opt out of responsibility, it doesn't matter what you put into your TOS or other contracts
b) executives which are found responsible for the negligent action of a company can be hold _personally_ liable
and independent of what X actually did Musk as highest level executive personal did
1) frequently did statements that imply gross negligence (to be clear that isn't necessary how X acted, which is the actual relevant part)
2) claimed that all major engineering decisions etc. are from him and no one else (because he love bragging about how good of an engineer he is)
This means summoning him for questioning is legally speaking a must have independent of weather you expect him to show up or not. And he probably should take it serious, even if that just means he also could send a different higher level executive from X instead.
(it’ll be interesting to see if this discussion is allowed on HN. Almost every other discussion on this topic has been flagged…)
As mentioned in the article, the UK's ICO and the EC are also investigating.
France is notably keen on raids for this sort of thing, and a lot of things that would be basically a desk investigation in other countries result in a raid in France.
/i
When notified, he immediately:
* "implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gz8g2qnlo
* locked image generation down to paid accounts only (i.e. those individuals that can be identified via their payment details).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98p1r4e6m8o
> Have the other AI companies followed suit? They were also allowing users to undress real people
No they weren’t? There were numerous examples of people feeding the same prompts to different AIs and having their requests refused. Not to mention, X was also publicly distributing that material, something other AI companies were not doing. Which is an entirely different legal liability.
In UK, it is entirely the same. Near zero.
Making/distributing a photo of a non-consenting bikini-wearer is no more illegal when originated by computer in bedroom than done by camera on public beach.
“Sorry I broke the law. Oops for reals tho.”
"Study uncovers presence of CSAM in popular AI training dataset"
I barely use it these days and think adding it to twitter is pretty meh but I view this as regulators exploiting an open goal to attack the infrastructure itself rather than grok e.g. prune-juice drinking sandal wearers in britain (many of whom are now government backbenchers) absolutely despise twitter and want to ban it ever since their team lost control. Similar vibe across the rest of europe.
They have (astutely, if they realise it at least) found one of the last vaguely open/mainstream spaces for dissenting thought and are thus almost definitely plotting to shut it down. Reddit is completely captured. The right is surging dialectically at the moment but it is genuinely reliant on twitter. The centre-left is basically dead so it doesn't get the same value from bluesky / their parts of twitter.