| ▲ | Retric 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That specific action is still instigated by Bob. Where grok is at risk is not responding after they are notified of the issue. It’s trivial for grock to ban some keywords here and they aren’t, that’s a legal issue. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | zardo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sure Bob is instigating the harassment, then X.com is actually doing the harassment. Or at least, that's the case plaintiff's attorneys are surely going to be arguing. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
if grok never existed and X instead ran a black-box-implementation "press button receive CP" webapp, X would be legally culpable and liable each time a user pressed the button, for production plus distribution the same is true if the webapp has a blank "type what you want I'll make it for you" field and the user types "CP" and the webapp makes it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||