zlacker

> when notified, doing nothing about it

When notified, he immediately:

  * "implemented technological measures to prevent the Grok account from allowing the editing of images of real people in revealing clothing" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8gz8g2qnlo 

  * locked image generation down to paid accounts only (i.e. those individuals that can be identified via their payment details).

Have the other AI companies followed suit? They were also allowing users to undress real people, but it seems the media is ignoring that and focussing their ire only on Musk's companies...

>>cbeach+(OP)
The other LLMs probably don't have the training data in the first place.

>>cbeach+(OP)
You and I must have different definitions of the word “immediately”. The article you posted is from January 15th. Here is a story from January 2nd:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98p1r4e6m8o

> Have the other AI companies followed suit? They were also allowing users to undress real people

No they weren’t? There were numerous examples of people feeding the same prompts to different AIs and having their requests refused. Not to mention, X was also publicly distributing that material, something other AI companies were not doing. Which is an entirely different legal liability.

>>afavou+p1
The part of X’s reaction to their own publishing I’m most looking forward to seeing in slow-motion in the courts and press was their attempt at agency laundering by having their LLM generate an apology in first-person.

“Sorry I broke the law. Oops for reals tho.”

>>afavou+p1
> Which is an entirely different legal liability.

In UK, it is entirely the same. Near zero.

Making/distributing a photo of a non-consenting bikini-wearer is no more illegal when originated by computer in bedroom than done by camera on public beach.

>>derrid+j1
Er...

"Study uncovers presence of CSAM in popular AI training dataset"

https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/20/csam_laion_dataset/.

>>chrisj+Xy
I thought this was about France

>>lokar+fa1
It was... until it diverted. >>46870196

>>cbeach+(OP)
Kiddie porn but only for the paying accounts!

>>freeja+Po1
Who's going to provide their payment details and then generate kiddie porn?

This is a pretty pragmatic move by Musk.

It's basically a honey trap, the likes of which authorities legitimately use to catch criminals.

>>mooreb+GP3
Who is going to generate kiddie porn on it in the first place? It's not as if a a lack of a credit card is preventing the authorities from figuring anything out. This is beyond ridiculous.

>>mooreb+GP3
Nah, Musk put out a public challenge in January asking anyone able to generate illegal / porno images to reply and tell him how they were able to bypass the safegaurds. Thousands of people tried and failed. I think the most people were able to get is stuff you'd see in an R-rated movie, and even then only for fictional requests as the latest versions of Grok refuse to undress or redress any real person into anything inappropriate.

Here's the mentioned thread: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2011527119097249996