zlacker

>>vikave+(OP)
> Prosecutors say they are now investigating whether X has broken the law across multiple areas.

This step could come before a police raid.

This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers.

>>Altern+ut
> This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers.

The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography.

>>moolco+Du
I'm of two minds about this.

One the one hand, it seems "obvious" that Grok should somehow be legally required to have guardrails stopping it from producing kiddie porn.

On the other hand, it also seems "obvious" that laws forcing 3D printers to detect and block attempts to print firearms are patently bullshit.

The thing is, I'm not sure how I can reconcile those two seemingly-obvious statements in a principled manner.

>>pdpi+cm3
It is very different. It is YOUR 3d printer, no one else is involved. You might print a knife and kill somebody with it, you go to jail, not third party involved.

If you use a service like Grok, then you use somebody elses computer / things. X is the owner from computer that produced CP. So of course X is at least also a bit liable for producing CP.

>>_tramp+1o3
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?

>>pdpi+so3
It's not like the world benefited from safe harbor laws that much. Why don't just amend them so that algorithms that run on server side and platforms that recommend things are not eligible.

>>numpad+jV3
If you are thinking about section 230 it only applies to user–generated content, so not server–side AI or timeline algorithms.