How?

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.

▲

KaiserPro 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> THat's like the 1993 moral panic that video games like Doom cause mass shootings,

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.

▲

joe_mamba 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>Apart from doom wasn't producing illegal content.

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.

	▲	pasc1878 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo 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
	▲	KaiserPro 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> 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.

▲

amelius 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

joe_mamba 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh yeah, because the main reason why EPstein and his guests got away with it for so long, is because there was so much low hanging CP out there confusing authorities and prosecutors, not because of the corruption, cronyism and political protection they enjoyed at the highest levels of government.

Do you guys even hear yourselves?

▲

amelius 4 hours ago | parent [-]

But how about the "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."

Some of those might still try.

▲

joe_mamba 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>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.

	▲	amelius 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It has to do with AI because: > 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.

▲

watwut 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, 20% of population is not seeking to abuse children nor teens. If you think so, you are moving in weird circles. In fact, what we also have are people who noped out of Epstein circle or even openly criticized it for years.

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.