7 ms·

It's not hypothetical. And in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. Those boys absolutely should be held accountable.

It's not hypothetical. And in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. 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-expelled-after-confronting-classmates-over-aimade-nude-images/6434608/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/girl-...

joe_mamba 8mo ago
>And in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. 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?
- anonymous908213 8mo ago
  Have you considered that it is possible for two things to be problems?
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    No, because the comment is in bad faith, it just introduced an unrelated issue (poor sentencing from authorities) as an argument for the initial issue we are discussing (AI nudes), derailing the conversation, and then using the new issue they themselves introduced to legitimize their poor argument when one has nothing to do with the other and both can be good/bad independently of each other. I don't accept this as good faith argumentation nor does HN rules.
    - Phelinofist 8mo ago
      You are the only one commenting in bad faith, by refusing to understand/acknowledging that the people using Grok to create such pictures AND Grok are both part of the issue. It should not be possible to create nudes of minors via Grok. Full stop.
      - joe_mamba 8mo ago
        >You are the only one commenting in bad faith 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?
        TheOtherHobbes 8mo ago
        This is textbook whataboutery. The law is perfectly clear on this, and Musk is liable. Other AIs have guardrails. If Musk chooses not to implement them, that's his personal irresponsibility.
        pka 8mo ago
        > 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? Both, obviously. For example, you go after drug distributors and drug producers. Both approaches are effective in different ways, I am not sure why you are having such trouble understanding this.
    - Bluescreenbuddy 8mo ago
      Then log off.
- lukan 8mo ago
  Grok made the pictures. The school authorities messed up. Both are accuntable.
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    >Grok made the pictures. 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?
    - defrost 8mo ago
      In the spirit of shitty "If's ..." 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 ?
      - joe_mamba 8mo ago
        The existence and creation of cigarettes and adult nude magazines is fully legal, only their sale is illegal to kids. If kids try to illegally obtain those LEGAL items, it doesn't make the existence of those items illegal, just the act of sale to them. Meanwhile, the existence/creation CSAM of actual people isn't legal, for anyone no matter the age.
        notachatbot123 8mo ago
        Grok created those images.
        pasc1878 8mo ago
        And when the magazines get sold who is breaking the law and gets convicted it is not the children but the shop supplying the children. So when Grok provides the illegal pictures then by the same logic it is Grok that is breaking the law.
      - abc123abc123 8mo ago
- pseudony 8mo ago
  You can’t “undo” a school shooting, for instance, so we tend to have gun laws. 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.
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    >You can’t just “undo” some girl being harassed by AI generated nude photos of her, so we… 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.
    - pseudony 8mo ago
      That’s just not how the world works. 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.
- sam-cop-vimes 8mo ago
  You cannot offload all problems to the legal system. It does not have the capacity. Legal issues take time to resolve and the victims have to have the necessary resource to pursue legal action. Grok enabled abuse at scale, which no legal system in the world can keep up with. It doesn't need explanation that generating nudes of people without their consent is a form of abuse. And if the legal system cannot keep up with protecting victims, the problem has to be dealt with at source.
  - joe_mamba 8mo ago
    >You cannot offload all problems to the legal system. It does not have the capacity. 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.
    - TheOtherHobbes 8mo ago
      None of what you've said is true. Deterrence is known to have a very limited effect on behaviour. In this case, it's far simpler to prosecute the source.
      - joe_mamba 8mo ago
        >None of what you've said is true. Everything I said is true. >Deterrence is known to have a very limited effect on behaviour. It is insanely effective when actually enforced. It's not effective when the goal is to make it seem ineffective so that people can evade the system. >In this case, it's far simpler to prosecute the source. The "source" is a tool that tomorrow can be in Russia or CHina and you can't prosecute.
- _pdp_ 8mo ago
  You know there is no such thing as the world police or something of that sort. If the perpetrator is in another country / jurisdiction it is virtually impossible to prosecute let alone sentence. It is 100% regulatory problem in this case. You just cannot allow this content to be generated and distributed in the public domain by anonymous users. It has nothing to do with free speech but with civility and common understanding of what is morally wrong / right. Obviously you cannot prevent this in private forums unless it is made illegal which is a completely different problem that requires a very different solution.
whywhywhywhy 8mo ago
This happens all the time with abusive children in schools, they're rarely punished at all even with extreme abuse and violence.
jgalt212 8mo ago
The police got it right. > When the sheriff's department looked into the case, they took the opposite actions. They charged two of the boys who'd been accused of sharing explicit images — and not the girl.

joe_mamba 8mo ago

>And in fact the girl who was being targeted was expelled not the boys who did it [1]. 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?

anonymous908213 8mo ago
Have you considered that it is possible for two things to be problems?
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  No, because the comment is in bad faith, it just introduced an unrelated issue (poor sentencing from authorities) as an argument for the initial issue we are discussing (AI nudes), derailing the conversation, and then using the new issue they themselves introduced to legitimize their poor argument when one has nothing to do with the other and both can be good/bad independently of each other. I don't accept this as good faith argumentation nor does HN rules.
  - Phelinofist 8mo ago
    You are the only one commenting in bad faith, by refusing to understand/acknowledging that the people using Grok to create such pictures AND Grok are both part of the issue. It should not be possible to create nudes of minors via Grok. Full stop.
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
      >You are the only one commenting in bad faith 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?
      - TheOtherHobbes 8mo ago
        This is textbook whataboutery. The law is perfectly clear on this, and Musk is liable. Other AIs have guardrails. If Musk chooses not to implement them, that's his personal irresponsibility.
      - pka 8mo ago
        > 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? Both, obviously. For example, you go after drug distributors and drug producers. Both approaches are effective in different ways, I am not sure why you are having such trouble understanding this.
  - Bluescreenbuddy 8mo ago
    Then log off.
lukan 8mo ago
Grok made the pictures. The school authorities messed up. Both are accuntable.
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >Grok made the pictures. 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?
  - defrost 8mo ago
    In the spirit of shitty "If's ..." 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 ?
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
      The existence and creation of cigarettes and adult nude magazines is fully legal, only their sale is illegal to kids. If kids try to illegally obtain those LEGAL items, it doesn't make the existence of those items illegal, just the act of sale to them. Meanwhile, the existence/creation CSAM of actual people isn't legal, for anyone no matter the age.
      - notachatbot123 8mo ago
        Grok created those images.
      - pasc1878 8mo ago
        And when the magazines get sold who is breaking the law and gets convicted it is not the children but the shop supplying the children. So when Grok provides the illegal pictures then by the same logic it is Grok that is breaking the law.
    - abc123abc123 8mo ago
pseudony 8mo ago
You can’t “undo” a school shooting, for instance, so we tend to have gun laws. 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.
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >You can’t just “undo” some girl being harassed by AI generated nude photos of her, so we… 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.
  - pseudony 8mo ago
    That’s just not how the world works. 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.
sam-cop-vimes 8mo ago
You cannot offload all problems to the legal system. It does not have the capacity. Legal issues take time to resolve and the victims have to have the necessary resource to pursue legal action. Grok enabled abuse at scale, which no legal system in the world can keep up with. It doesn't need explanation that generating nudes of people without their consent is a form of abuse. And if the legal system cannot keep up with protecting victims, the problem has to be dealt with at source.
- joe_mamba 8mo ago
  >You cannot offload all problems to the legal system. It does not have the capacity. 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.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8mo ago
    None of what you've said is true. Deterrence is known to have a very limited effect on behaviour. In this case, it's far simpler to prosecute the source.
    - joe_mamba 8mo ago
      >None of what you've said is true. Everything I said is true. >Deterrence is known to have a very limited effect on behaviour. It is insanely effective when actually enforced. It's not effective when the goal is to make it seem ineffective so that people can evade the system. >In this case, it's far simpler to prosecute the source. The "source" is a tool that tomorrow can be in Russia or CHina and you can't prosecute.
_pdp_ 8mo ago
You know there is no such thing as the world police or something of that sort. If the perpetrator is in another country / jurisdiction it is virtually impossible to prosecute let alone sentence. It is 100% regulatory problem in this case. You just cannot allow this content to be generated and distributed in the public domain by anonymous users. It has nothing to do with free speech but with civility and common understanding of what is morally wrong / right. Obviously you cannot prevent this in private forums unless it is made illegal which is a completely different problem that requires a very different solution.

whywhywhywhy 8mo ago

This happens all the time with abusive children in schools, they're rarely punished at all even with extreme abuse and violence.

jgalt212 8mo ago

The police got it right. > When the sheriff's department looked into the case, they took the opposite actions. They charged two of the boys who'd been accused of sharing explicit images — and not the girl.