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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>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?

▲

Bluescreenbuddy 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then log off.