Creating, possessing, and distributing CSAM is illegal in the US and many other countries. Can you explain why you think it should be legal to create something that is illegal to possess or distribute?

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.

> 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.

Actually you'll see the opposite happen a lot - after Columbine, the number of school shootings went up [0] for example, because before people didn't consider it an option. Same with serial killers / copycats, and a bunch of other stuff.

Likewise, if it hadn't been in the news, a lot of people wouldn't have known you can / could create nudes of real people with Grok. News reporting on these things is its own kind of unfortunate marketing, and for every X people that are outraged about this, there will be some that are instead inspired and interested.

While a lot of punishments for crimes is indeed a deterrent, it doesn't always work. Also because in this case, it's relatively easy to avoid being found out (unlike school shootings).

[0] https://www.security.org/blog/a-timeline-of-school-shootings...

The way you are arguing makes it really hard to understand what you are trying to say. I am guessing you are upset that non-human entity is being used as a boogie man while the actual people are going free? But your argumentation reads like someone who is very upset at AI producing CSAM is being persecuted. I won’t be surprised if people think you are defending CSAM.

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.

"outside of US jurisdiction"

Did you see the part in the article about "raided in France" and "UK opens fresh investigation"?

> And the issues keeps persisting, because nobody ever goes to jail.

Yes, let's just jail every kid who makes a mistake, ya know, instead of the enablers who should know better as adults...

except for that one guy, let's put him in the white house

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.

> 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

And yet criminals still commit crimes. Obviously jail is not the ultimate deterrent you think it is. Nobody commits crimes with the expectation that they'll get caught, and if you only "crucify some people", then most criminals are going to (rightfully) assume that they'll be one of the lucky ones.

Actually research shows people regularly overestimate how effective deterrence-based punishment is. Particularly for children and teenagers. How many 14-year-olds do you really think are getting prosecuted and sent to jail for asking Grok to generate a nude of their classmate..? How many 14-year-olds are giving serious thought about their long-term future in the moment they are typing a prompt into to Twitter..? Your argument is akin to suggesting that carmakers should sell teenagers cars to drive, because the teenager can be punished if they cause an accident.

> 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.

I genuinely cannot tell if you are being comically naïve or extremely obtuse here. You need only look at the world around you to see that this does not, and never will, happen.

As another commenter said, this argument is presenting itself as apologia for CSAM and you come across as a defender of the right for a business to create and publish it. I assume you don't actually believe that, but the points you made are compatible.

It is as much the responsibility of a platform for providing the services to create illegal material, and also distributing said illegal material. That it happens to be an AI that generates the imagery is not relevant - X and Grok are still the two services responsible for producing and hosting it. Therefore, the accountability falls on those businesses and its leadership just as much as it does the individual user, because ultimately they are facilitating it.

To compare to other situations: if a paedophile ring is discovered on the dark web, the FBI doesn't just arrest the individuals involved and leave the website open. It takes the entire thing down including those operating it, even if they themselves were simply providing the server and not partaking in the content.

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.

Then log off.

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 ?

You're suggesting an inconsistency where there isn't one. A country can ban guns and allow rope, even though both can kill.

it's surprising how far people will go to defend CSAM

"Correction: kids made the pictures. Using Grok as the tool."

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.

I don't want to.

But I don't want others to be easily able to either.

In your scenario, yes, you are guilty as well. But so is the one that actually did the deed, i.e. Grok in this case.

You're arguing my point for me. Just because you do something for someone else doesn't mean you're absolved of responsibility.

You can't build a tool with a "create child porn" button and then expect not to get into trouble for helping people make child porn.

>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.