Literally your source:

> her stepfather used the Grok chatbot to transform a childhood photo into child sexual abuse material

He could have used Stable Diffusion. Or, if this was the 90s, Photoshop.

By your argument, we’d have to abolish the internet, or add nanny filters to everything.

How many people on HN resent it when Claude refuses an instruction? And yet here you are, arguing against personal responsibility and for a when-in-doubt-block approach to technology. Is it because it’s Musk?

▲

DrBenCarson 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Come on, man. Not allowing products to generate CP is too high of a bar?

By your logic cops should be focused on the junkies, forget about the cartel

	▲	redox99 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Correct me if I'm wrong, but it didn't actually generate CP, it changed people into bikinis, not actual nudity. You can go to the beach or (I assume) search on Google and find people of any age wearing bikinis. And that's fine because to normal people (not pedos) it's not something sexual. I understand that someone specifically editing a minor into less clothing is probably a pedo. Probably the same way someone generating feet gets aroused with that stuff. But that doesn't mean a model generating feet is problematic. I do think making the model reject the bikini thing is a good idea once you find out it's happening, but let's not pretend it's the same as the model generating actual sexual content.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]