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.
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.
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
The safe harbor provisions largely protect X from the content that the users post (within reason). Suddenly Grok/X were actually producing the objectionable content. Users were making gross requests and then an LLM owned by X, using X servers and X code would generate the illegal material and then post it to the website. The entity responsible is no longer done user but instead the company itself.
Yes, and that was a very stupid product decision. They could have put the image generation into the post editor, shifting responsibility to the users.
I'd guess Elon is responsible for that product decision.
So, if someone hosts an image editor as web app, are they liable if someone uses that editor to create CP?
I honestly don't follow it. People creating nudes of others and using the Internet to distribute it can be sued for defamation, sure. I don't think the people hosting the service should be liable themselves, just like people hosting Tor nodes shouldn't be liable by what users of the Tor Network do.
Note that is a US law, not a French one.
Also, safe harbor doesn't apply because this is published under the @grok handle! It's being published by X under one of their brand names, it's absurd to argue that they're unaware or not consenting to its publication.
Before a USER did create content. So the user was / is liable. Now a LLM owned by a company does create content. So the company is liable.
I'm not trying to make excuses for Grok, but how exactly isn't the user creating the content? Grok doesn't have create images on its own volition, the user is still required to give it some input, therefore "creating" the content.
X is making it pretty clear that it is "Grok" posting those images and not the user. It is a separate posting that comes from an official account named "Grok". X has full control over what the official "Grok" account posts.
There is no functionality for the users to review and approve "Grok" responses to their tweets.
Does an autonomous car drive the car from point A to point B or does the person who puts in the destination address drive the car?
Until now, webserver had just been like a post service. Grok is more like a CNC late.
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.
If you are thinking about section 230 it only applies to user–generated content, so not server–side AI or timeline algorithms.
So if a social network tool does the exact same thing, but uses the user's own GPU or NPU to generate the content instead, suddenly it's fine?
If a user generates child porn on their own and uploads it to a social network, the social network is shielded from liability until they refuse to delete it.
Changes who's technically the perp. Offer managed porn generation service -> service provider is responsible for generating porn, like, literally literally
This might be an unpopular opinion but I always thought we might be better off without Web 2.0 where site owners aren’t held responsible for user content
If you’re hosting content, why shouldn’t you be responsible, because your business model is impossible if you’re held to account for what’s happening on your premises?
Without safe harbor, people might have to jump through the hoops of buying their own domain name, and hosting content themselves, would that be so bad?
What about webmail, IM, or any other sort of web-hosted communication? Do you honestly think it would be better if Google were responsible for whatever content gets sent to a gmail address?
Messages are a little different than hosting public content but sure, a service provider should know its customers and stop doing business with any child sex traffickers planning parties over email.
I would prefer 10,000 service providers to one big one that gets to read all the plaintext communication of the entire planet.
In a world where hosting services are responsible that way, their filtering would need to be even more sensitive than it is today, and plenty of places already produce unreasonable amounts of false positives.
As it stands, I have a bunch of photos on my phone that would almost certainly get flagged by over-eager/overly sensitive child porn detection — close friends and family sending me photos of their kids at the beach. I've helped bathe and dress some of those kids. There's nothing nefarious about any of it, but it's close enough that services wouldn't take the risk, and that would be a loss to us all.
They'd all have to read your emails to ensure you don't plan child sex parties. Whenever a keyword match comes up, your account will immediately be deleted.
Any app allowing any communication between two users would be illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EncroChat
You have to understand that Europe doesn't give a shit about techbro libertarians and their desire for a new Lamborghini.
EncroChat was illegal because it was targeted at drug dealers, advertised for use in drug dealing. And they got evidence by texting "My associate got busted dealing drugs. Can you wipe his device?" and it was wiped. There's an actual knowledge component which is very important here.
You know this site would not be possible without those protections, right?
On the contrary HN is one of the most heavily moderated forums out here and serves as a great example of a right-size community where sex trafficking is not happening under the nose of an ambivalent host
(Snark aside, in your opinion are there comments on HN that dang would be criminally liable for if it weren't for safe harbor?)
The 3D printers don't generate the plans for the gun for you though. If someone sold a printer that would – happily with no guardrails – generate 3D models of CSAM from thin air and then print them, I bet they'd be investigated too. Or for that matter a 3D printer that came bundled with a built-in library of gun models you could print with very little skill...
I don't have an answer, but the theme that's been bouncing around in my head has been about accessibility.
Grok makes it trivial to create fake CSAM or other explicit images. Before, if someone spent a week on photoshop to do the same, It won't be Adobe that gets the blame.
Same for 3D printers. Before, anyone could make a gun provided they have the right tools (which is very expensive), now it's being argued that 3D printers are making this more accessible. Although I would argue it's always been easy to make a gun, all you need is a piece of pipe. So I don't entirely buy the moral panic against 3D printers.
Where that threshold lies I don't know. But I think that's the crux if it. Technology is making previously difficult things easier, to the benefit of all humanity. It's just unfortunate that some less-nice things have also been included.
I think a company which runs a printing business would have some obligations to make sure they are not fulfilling print orders for guns. Another interesting example are printers and copiers, which do refuse to copy cash. Which is partly facilitated with the EURion constellation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation) and other means.
i don't see any need for guardrails, other than making the prompter responsible for the output of the bot, particularly when it's predictable
you cannot elaborately use a software to produce an effect that is patently illegal and accurate to your usage, and then pretend the software is to blame
Grok is publishing the CSAM photos for everyone to see. It is used as a tool for harassment and abuse, literally.
Sure, and the fact that they haven't voluntarily put guard rails up to stop that is absolutely vile. But my personal definition of "absolutely vile" isn't a valid legal standard. So, the issue is, like I said, how do you come up with a principled approach to making them do it that doesn't have a whole bunch of unintended consequences?
Courts are able or should be able to distinguish "tool that creates an item in the privacy of your home" and "tool that disseminates nonconsensual pornographic picture to wide public". Legal standards with that level or definition are fairly normal.