9 ms·

And for generating an absolutely gargantuan amount of CSAM and non-consensual sexualized images, but yeah, exfiltrating data too.

mlindner 2mo ago
You can't "generate" CSAM. CSAM definitionally had to be about abuse of real children. It's still bad and should be illegal but lumping them together is bad.
- roryirvine 2mo ago
  You do realise that saying "SpaceX are producing and distributing child porn, not CSAM" doesn't actually make things better for them, don't you?
  - mlindner 2mo ago
    Personally I think AI should be treated like photoshop. If someone is creating life-like imagery of child sexual abuse that you can't determine if its real or not, then that would be the criminal action of the person producing it. Software companies should not be acting like overlords on how their software can be used. People get upset when states try to legislate that 3D printer manufacturers should detect and prevent people trying to make gun parts, but somehow this is different.
    - roryirvine 2mo ago
      Sure. And SpaceX (or anyone else) were to run a child porn service using Photoshop, they should be held accountable for that too. The tooling doesn't matter, it's the nature of the images they were generating and distributing that was the problem.
tick_tock_tick 2mo ago
Are you suggesting Grok hired some people on the dark web or some shit? An AI model can't generate CSAM what kind of bullshit are you spewing.
- KingMob 2mo ago
  Might want to double-check that one, chief. xAI itself disagrees with you. They admitted in court that Grok was used to generate CSAM: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/15/business/xai-sues-user-alleged-child-sexual-abuse-materials https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/15/business/xai-sues-user-al...
  - tick_tock_tick 2mo ago
    Them attempting to claim something in a lawsuit doesn't make it a fact. Nothing mentioned in those claims is CSAM.
    - KingMob 2mo ago
      xAI literally says in their own lawsuit, "Defendant breached the xAI Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy by leveraging Grok to generate non-consensual sexually explicit images and CSAM". "CSAM" is literally right there. If you think know better than xAI itself, take it up with them.
      - tick_tock_tick 2mo ago
        Twitter and Musk don't get to define USA law no matter what you think.
        KingMob 2mo ago
        "CSAM" is literally right there. If you think know better than xAI itself, take it up with them.
- bobsomers 2mo ago
  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/lawsuit-grok-user-made-7k-child-sex-images-xai-only-reported-one-gang-rape-prompt/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/lawsuit-grok-use... This is only the most recent example. Plenty of headlines like this one if you'd even bother to look.
dijit 2mo ago
If I use a shovel to kill a man, the shovel maker did not engage in intentionally crafting a weapon of war. How tools are used are a reflection of the people who use them, and I definitely sympathise that tools should have guardrails to not enable this, or at least detect it. But if a pedophile uses Whatsapp to groom a child; I don't go after Whatsapp for being a neutral service... I go after the pedophile.
- jazzpush2 2mo ago
  Ok, but what if all Whatsapp competitors explicitly banned the ability to groom children on their platform, but Whataspp didn't, and directly advertised it.
  - dijit 2mo ago
    I find the premise of your comment completely incredulous. I totally understand tribalism, and Elon and X aren't exactly well favoured. (not even by me) But what you're saying right now is that they advertised the fact that they can create child pornography and deepfakes.. I simply don't believe it, unless you provide evidence.
    - brokencode 2mo ago
      Elon himself promoted Grok’s “spicy mode” that allowed generating NSFW content that the other AI vendors wouldn’t touch with a 20 foot pole. Believe whatever you want. Elon’s beliefs and personality problems have been baked into the core of Grok, so it’s no surprise that it turned out to be a CSAM-generating MechaHitler that steals people’s data. Anybody surprised when Grok turns out to be trash really should read up on the guy who made it.
      - dijit 2mo ago
        Tumblr also permitted some more risqué content. Yet we (rightly) condemned those that used this leniency to do nefarious things. I'm really ready to get on the Elon hate train, and I will grant you that there was a problem that needs fixing, but I'm really not happy with the amount of censorship on these generative AI platforms. Groks harness also clearly biases towards Elons views, Yet the washington post claims it's the most even handed and least likely to give politically biased answers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2026/06/24/are-ai-chatbots-like-chatgpt-politically-biased-we-tested-them/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2026/0... idk how to interpret all this, despite being genuinely anti-Elon, I don't think I'm personally willing to immolate a company forever because the guardrails were temporarily too loose. I'm not trying to make an equivalency for facts vs deepfake porn, but there is one there unfortunately, and overall internet freedom has been curtailed a lot by advertising friendliness.
blizzard_dev_17 2mo ago
You're the one wanting to generate that though
- jdiff 2mo ago
  No other model is so easy to generate such things. No model is so negligent in adding safeguards. I've seen it generate such things in response to a post that was clearly labeled as a 4th grader. The person you are talking to is responding to instances like that. They're not asking for it, that's obnoxiously silly and disingenuous.
  - exodust 2mo ago
    Sounds like you've tried generating such things. You've seen things people wouldn't believe. Inappropriate AI images off the shoulder of Orion, etc. Now the counter-weight over-compensation. Insisting the tool "doesn't have enough safeguards". Could it be that our AI usage innocence is related to how much we criticise the tool for not policing us enough? Meanwhile the rest of us have never seen such images because we're not looking for those images, or trying to prompt for those images, or thinking about those images. How about the people using these tools take responsibility, rather than forcing colossal layers of safeguards on everything and everyone?
    - Lomlioto 2mo ago
      It started by school kids generating images of their peers. Researchers and police investigated this -> experts. People found out (like the researches and investigators) that its very easy to generate this type of content. Elon Musk himself though absolutly knows about this and how easy is to generate porn. Its his thing, freedom before anything else. Why would anyone tell the richest person on the planet what he can or can't do. Its disappointing to see that you don't think that the richest person on the planet doesn't need to do more to protect miss use but reframe it like this.
      - exodust 2mo ago

mlindner 2mo ago

You can't "generate" CSAM. CSAM definitionally had to be about abuse of real children. It's still bad and should be illegal but lumping them together is bad.

roryirvine 2mo ago
You do realise that saying "SpaceX are producing and distributing child porn, not CSAM" doesn't actually make things better for them, don't you?
- mlindner 2mo ago
  Personally I think AI should be treated like photoshop. If someone is creating life-like imagery of child sexual abuse that you can't determine if its real or not, then that would be the criminal action of the person producing it. Software companies should not be acting like overlords on how their software can be used. People get upset when states try to legislate that 3D printer manufacturers should detect and prevent people trying to make gun parts, but somehow this is different.
  - roryirvine 2mo ago
    Sure. And SpaceX (or anyone else) were to run a child porn service using Photoshop, they should be held accountable for that too. The tooling doesn't matter, it's the nature of the images they were generating and distributing that was the problem.

tick_tock_tick 2mo ago

Are you suggesting Grok hired some people on the dark web or some shit? An AI model can't generate CSAM what kind of bullshit are you spewing.

KingMob 2mo ago
Might want to double-check that one, chief. xAI itself disagrees with you. They admitted in court that Grok was used to generate CSAM: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/15/business/xai-sues-user-alleged-child-sexual-abuse-materials https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/15/business/xai-sues-user-al...
- tick_tock_tick 2mo ago
  Them attempting to claim something in a lawsuit doesn't make it a fact. Nothing mentioned in those claims is CSAM.
  - KingMob 2mo ago
    xAI literally says in their own lawsuit, "Defendant breached the xAI Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy by leveraging Grok to generate non-consensual sexually explicit images and CSAM". "CSAM" is literally right there. If you think know better than xAI itself, take it up with them.
    - tick_tock_tick 2mo ago
      Twitter and Musk don't get to define USA law no matter what you think.
      - KingMob 2mo ago
        "CSAM" is literally right there. If you think know better than xAI itself, take it up with them.
bobsomers 2mo ago
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/lawsuit-grok-user-made-7k-child-sex-images-xai-only-reported-one-gang-rape-prompt/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/07/lawsuit-grok-use... This is only the most recent example. Plenty of headlines like this one if you'd even bother to look.

dijit 2mo ago

If I use a shovel to kill a man, the shovel maker did not engage in intentionally crafting a weapon of war. How tools are used are a reflection of the people who use them, and I definitely sympathise that tools should have guardrails to not enable this, or at least detect it. But if a pedophile uses Whatsapp to groom a child; I don't go after Whatsapp for being a neutral service... I go after the pedophile.

jazzpush2 2mo ago
Ok, but what if all Whatsapp competitors explicitly banned the ability to groom children on their platform, but Whataspp didn't, and directly advertised it.
- dijit 2mo ago
  I find the premise of your comment completely incredulous. I totally understand tribalism, and Elon and X aren't exactly well favoured. (not even by me) But what you're saying right now is that they advertised the fact that they can create child pornography and deepfakes.. I simply don't believe it, unless you provide evidence.
  - brokencode 2mo ago
    Elon himself promoted Grok’s “spicy mode” that allowed generating NSFW content that the other AI vendors wouldn’t touch with a 20 foot pole. Believe whatever you want. Elon’s beliefs and personality problems have been baked into the core of Grok, so it’s no surprise that it turned out to be a CSAM-generating MechaHitler that steals people’s data. Anybody surprised when Grok turns out to be trash really should read up on the guy who made it.
    - dijit 2mo ago
      Tumblr also permitted some more risqué content. Yet we (rightly) condemned those that used this leniency to do nefarious things. I'm really ready to get on the Elon hate train, and I will grant you that there was a problem that needs fixing, but I'm really not happy with the amount of censorship on these generative AI platforms. Groks harness also clearly biases towards Elons views, Yet the washington post claims it's the most even handed and least likely to give politically biased answers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2026/06/24/are-ai-chatbots-like-chatgpt-politically-biased-we-tested-them/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2026/0... idk how to interpret all this, despite being genuinely anti-Elon, I don't think I'm personally willing to immolate a company forever because the guardrails were temporarily too loose. I'm not trying to make an equivalency for facts vs deepfake porn, but there is one there unfortunately, and overall internet freedom has been curtailed a lot by advertising friendliness.

blizzard_dev_17 2mo ago

You're the one wanting to generate that though

jdiff 2mo ago
No other model is so easy to generate such things. No model is so negligent in adding safeguards. I've seen it generate such things in response to a post that was clearly labeled as a 4th grader. The person you are talking to is responding to instances like that. They're not asking for it, that's obnoxiously silly and disingenuous.
- exodust 2mo ago
  Sounds like you've tried generating such things. You've seen things people wouldn't believe. Inappropriate AI images off the shoulder of Orion, etc. Now the counter-weight over-compensation. Insisting the tool "doesn't have enough safeguards". Could it be that our AI usage innocence is related to how much we criticise the tool for not policing us enough? Meanwhile the rest of us have never seen such images because we're not looking for those images, or trying to prompt for those images, or thinking about those images. How about the people using these tools take responsibility, rather than forcing colossal layers of safeguards on everything and everyone?
  - Lomlioto 2mo ago
    It started by school kids generating images of their peers. Researchers and police investigated this -> experts. People found out (like the researches and investigators) that its very easy to generate this type of content. Elon Musk himself though absolutly knows about this and how easy is to generate porn. Its his thing, freedom before anything else. Why would anyone tell the richest person on the planet what he can or can't do. Its disappointing to see that you don't think that the richest person on the planet doesn't need to do more to protect miss use but reframe it like this.
    - exodust 2mo ago