Grok created those images.

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.

> If parents or school let children play with explosives or do drugs

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.

If MechaGrok sells explosives to children, that's a go-go?

You’re absolutely right that it is a difficult question where to draw the line. Different countries will do it differently according to their devotion to individual freedoms vs communal welfare.

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.

> meanwhile the violent crime rates have not dropped.

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.

> Anyone skilled at photoshop

So let's say there are two ways to do something illegal. The first requires skills from the perpetrator, is tricky to regulate, and is generally speaking not a widespread issue in practice. The second way is a no brainer even for young children to use, is easy to regulate, and is becoming a huge issue in practice. Then it makes sense to regulate only the second.

> 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?

Tricky question, but a more accurate comparison would be with a company that runs a service to 3D print guns (= generating the image) and shoot with them in the street (= publishing on X) automatically for you and keeps accepting illegal requests while the competitors have no issue blocking them.

> 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?

That's also a tricky question, but generally you don't really need to know precisely where to draw the line. It suffices to know that something is definitely on the wrong side of the line, like X here.

A 3D printer needs a blueprint. AI has all the blueprints built-in. It can generalize, so the blueprints cannot simply be erased, however at least what we can do is forbid generation of adult content. Harm should be limited. Photoshop requires skill and manual work, that's the difference. In the end, yes, people are the ones who are responsible for their actions. We shouldn't let kids (or anyone else) harm others with little to no effort. Let's be reasonable.