Why do you know about CSAM-as-a-service companies?
How could something like that even exist without it being a government operation like Epstein Island?
I'm not sure what is "ridiculous and twisted" when I point out that obviously X does not facilitate CSAM "as a service".
No, X is not a sewer.
It's a perfectly usable platform that I find pushes less political content to my feed than other alternatives, such as Reddit.
They also offer AI services with less guardrails than more risk adverse competitors. It appears this may have been a mistake in combination with image editing capabilities.
For the confused reader, "CSAM-as-a-service" means they will ban your account and sic the cops on you if you use their service to create CSAM:
“We take action against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary,” X Safety said. “Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content.”
The trick here is that the sexualised but not actually naked pictures of children are not actually illegal in the US (or quite possibly England as well). Just very disturbing.
It's an odd shadow war though, because the government haven't even pulled their own Twitter accounts from the service (which they can and should do).
And so can you run local models which can generate far worse material.
And horny teens have always fantasist about celebrities, or that girl they have a crush one etc. And there always had been people people cutting physical images together to place the head of their obsession on some erotic magazine sourced body.
But like you saied it's creating a feed of all the people which have been sexualized against their will.
There is a huge difference between someone doing something in your mind (or room) and it staying there and it being posted international for billions of people to see (and download, and re-post, and cherry pick preferred pictures and then feed into AI model which will actually full undress people etc.)
and a huge company making money from not just sexualizing people against their will, but also putting creating a public feed about all the people they have sexualized against their will
and then the owner going out of their way to claim that that is all free speech they won't change anything and anyone who tries is fascist, communist, evil etc.
except that definitions of what free speech means vary largely between countries and huge parts of the world have definitions where stuff like "creating sexualized images of people against their will" (or systematic harassment, cyber mobbing, death threads, and a bunch of other things) are very clearly _not_ covered by free speech.
realistically speaking this is also AI output, i.e. not speech of a person (weather natural or legal/company), i.e. it's questionably if Grok posting generated images does even count as speech (in the US and many other countries)...
Such content includes anything using the word cisgender, posting pictures of Herr Musk from before their gender reaffirmment surgery, and referring to the Grand Pedophile in Chief in a non-brownnosing manner, I presume.
Do the actually do this, or do they just say they do this?
If they do it, why don’t they preemptively block it instead? I know they don’t have anywhere near the manpower to find this stuff manually so it would have to be automated. If it’s automated then they could detect it as it’s happening and prevent it from being made in the first place.
> Do the actually do this, or do they just say they do this?
they do it within limits
- you trick it into generating actual naked people (instead of bikini pictures or sexualized poses etc.)
- it blows up (bad press, a lot of abuse reports)
which means effectively for most of this pictures there are no consequences
heck Elon has personally argued they fall under free speech and nothing need to be changed.... (but in EU, UK, and large parts of the world they don't. Also in a round about way free speech probably doesn't apply to it in the US either: because speech needs a speaker which is a person (natural or legal) and AI doesn't count as a person (and hence can by itself not hold copyright either)).
and Musk went further saying it's free speech and implying if you try do anything against it you are fascist
and you could check the Grok "~feed" and get tons over tons of examples of them _not_ doing anything. And if that changed, then it did very recently. I mean the UK is not the only country where the topic of regulating X to to them failing to self regulate and outright intentionally ignoring local laws was opened up. And as much as Musk might say he don't care and it's implied that the US will retaliate against any country which enforces actions against X for not complying with their law when doing business in their country, it still is a huge headache for X (company) and it's not like people in the US are supper happy about that either.
I don't know, I got the rules of free speech absolutism from the worlds free speech absolutist.
If I were to say "a free speech loophole for things they believe in / don't believe doesn't sound compatible with absolutism" in I would be using a) banned speech as they define it and b) violating their free speech.
