> Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM and nonconsensual intimate imagery
Grok Imagine has been considerably locked down in terms of intimate imagery over the last few weeks. E.g. Harley Quinn used to be one of the easiest characters to manipulate, with or without any resemblance to Margot Robbie. No more. X still serves up explicit hardcore, and Imagine used to get at least in that neighborhood, but that has been squelched. For prurient purposes, nerfed. Not at all limited to CSAM or real people. The pressure they're getting from all over seems to explain it.
Whatever you think about X's image generation models, I don't see how it is related to the petition that the EFF is opposing.
Is generation of non-consensual imagery really a privacy issue?
If someone publishes a real naked photo of you, that was acquired without your consent, that would be a privacy issue.
If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.
I think the terminology here can confuse the issue a bit. And because its such a socially pernicious and stigmatized topic, it's hard to even talk about the phrasing without without raising doubts as to why you would get caught up in the weeds on such an issue. But, I would say there is use in making the distinction between something that is CSAM, where its a record of abuse that has happened to a real child, and sexualized depictions of children, or content promoting the sexualization of children. The social and personal harms are distinct, and if we are to firmly understand the arguments for/against guardrails on generative AI, then it's a distinction that needs to be made I think.
A problem you'd probably run into here is that it would be rather difficult to prove that no real CSAM was involved in the process of making the somehow-okay fake CSAM. Image generation models require training sets, after all. Do the companies training these models have the necessary data and evidence to prove every individual in every training image was over 18? Is generating fake CSAM okay if you trained the model on non-CSAM photos of real kids? I don't think so.
There are of course situations where being aggressive about this can hinder people's freedoms - like an adult who looks 'too young' having their freedoms curtailed because any photos or videos would Look Like CSAM - but I don't think they're common enough harms to justify holding back on regulation here.
> like an adult who looks 'too young' having their freedoms curtailed because any photos or videos would Look Like CSAM - but I don't think they're common enough harms
It is extremely common in some parts of the world. Age from visual appearance basically doesn't work inter-culturally, with or without AI, and ... there are people amassing something like 1/3 of the world that look like kids until they must retire from all work including use of gas stoves to boil water. Said people just literally look like kids, attracts wrong kinds of the rest 2/3, wrongly reject them if others come over, and gets banned on social media as being underaged, all the time.
edit: I have feeling that the concept of "adults by appearance" might be the case of suspicious discontinuities created by industrial revolution; it is often said that the modern concept of binary child/adults dichotomy is the result of industrialization though the concept of child always existed. For this reason, there might have been selective pressure towards attaining "definitely adult" appearances at younger ages in forerunner regions, and less such pressure at regions that followed it. IMO that makes more sense than assuming people from some regions are obsessed with certain things.
We used to have "coming of age" ceremonies that were more based around the individual person in question than a simple age number. But that would be too hard for a law to make a rule on.
Actual porn sites have to have written records proving their models are over 18. If Grok wakes to generate porn, they can go ahead and prove that the models in their training images were of age, regardless of how they look. Nobody is suggesting to trust the AI (or anyone else) to determine the age of a person based solely on appearance.
Unless of course you're trying to argue that sexualized images of children generated by grok can't be proven to be images of children, because that's ridiculous.
>there are people amassing something like 1/3 of the world that look like kids until they must retire from all work including use of gas stoves to boil water.
What are you talking about?
Personally I think that even if the training data, is made of images of people who are over 18, the state of the adult industry is that there is a lot of harm and exploitation involved in that even. Do we have the evidence necessary to prove every over 18 person who's images are in the training data are okay with that use? So there is no somehow-okay anything. But if were dealing with models that can combine concepts .. then "adult" + "sex" = "sexualized adult" so "child" + "sex" = "sexualized child" .. this is just a fundamental capability of the technology. Without even getting into nudity where its easy to see how non CSAM, non-sexualize medical images etc, can fill in the gaps for the model. This is why I think just calling it CSAM is confusing the arguments. I see the base harm as being the promotion of sexualization of children. And this is more a harm and risk to society and to people consuming these images. Of course if you extend this to "real childs image" + "sex" to get a sexualized deepfake then there is a kind of harm to that individual too, but its still a disctint thing from physical abuse.. This is just my instincts on this but I'd be really interested to see some real discussion between people with actual extensive understand and experience of all these areas.
Hand drawings and photoshopping a minor's face onto an adult body are already illegal. Having a machine do the work automatically doesn't change that.
Frankly, I don't think anyone cares that these images are generated using CSAM or non-consensual imagery. If I generate a perfectly ordinary picture of a person and the model somehow used CSAM or non-consensual imagery to do it, no one would care. Conversely, if we could prove a model generated gross ass images using nothing gross ass, everyone currently objecting would still object. So, let's just say what we mean here: we have a moral problem with people generating, storing, and sharing these images.
> If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.
"You see, your honor, it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of their reflection in the mirror."
I feel like this discussion is a question of what the exact structure of the hydrogen-filled blimp should look like, and not a discussion of the fact that THE BLIMP IS FILLED WITH HYDROGEN.
Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words, that we skipped right over the clearly wrong/awful intent.
> Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words,
Perhaps try reading "your private data" again - slowly.
What do you think my comment was responding to? Literally those are the words that I was responding to.
Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image is exactly the kind of lawyer-brained wording I was referring to when I made the comment about the mirror. "It's not a picture of you, it's a picture of a reflection of you."
> What do you think my comment was responding to?
Your misunderstanding of "private data". This is not lawyered words.
> Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself
It is not a naked image of yourself.
An image of someone else's naked body does not become a reflection of an image of you just because your face is pasted on it. Object if you wish, but when it comes to privacy, the only possible breach is of the privacy of the body, not the face.
> is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image
It is not your image.
You do, in fact, have rights over your 'likeness'. In most jurisdictions. [0]
In the US, that would fall under Prosser's Four Torts, "appropriation of name and likeness".
The law, currently, doesn't care if you think its a new image. Likeness is protected. Similarity is enough.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
Please don't tell me you think you have rights over the image of another's naked body because it looks similar to yours.
Please don't tell me you think my own face is not my own likeness
I won't. I will tell you that any rights over commercial exploitation of a likeness is totally separate from this privacy issue.
> It is not a naked image of yourself.
If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created.
Is that an image of you?
It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human).
You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you without knowing where it came from, but I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, it is your exact likeness, it is a picture of you.
In an ideal world, generated non-consensual imagery should be illegal through invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness, but I think only a limited number of states have those laws.
Should it apply also to drawings? Detailed descriptions? Strong mental visualisations?
Is it private data if it was scraped from my social media profile marked private but leaked through a shared party? My expectation was that image would only be shared with those I wanted to see it (form of privacy).
That's fair. Is there any indication as to if xAi trains on private profiles?
Is there any indication it doesn’t. From what you know about LLM teams, products, and engineers, especially XAI, does the word “private” or “Disallow: <my-private-profile-path>” seem to stop them?
"CSAM" is a codeword for anime. Users of this term routinely reject focusing on real kids and abuses. I assume "privacy" must be therefore a codeword too, especially considering that nonconsensual shocking images can be handled by defamation laws than privacy laws and principles.
I would hope we can agree that aggressive policing of anime and cartoons is a bad thing without denying the real existence of CSAM - the actual thing - or denying the bad things that have to occur for it to exist
I never denied the real existence of CSAM, I'm just saying that there are people who use "CSAM" to specifically mean anime and anime related photos and avoids discussion of actually detecting or preventing sexual abuses. I think I've seen it blatantly said on organizational blog posts somewhere that trying to move focus to kids is disingenuous or something.
Just so were clear here the CSAM acronym stands for Child Sexual Abuse Material. Some Anime gets caught up because there is a lot of dubious visual depictions of that.
Which is a moral affront, not an offense against a person. The whole reason CSAM is abhorrent is its evidence of abuse. A cartoon is evidence of nothing. We should treat them differently.
> The whole reason CSAM is abhorrent is its evidence of abuse
This would make cartel execution videos more abhorrent?
Why would watching or possession of evidence of abuse against a person be an offense against a person? Other than potential second-order effects that may or may not occur like increase in demand for abuse?
I think it's perceived as abhorrent mostly because it's an evidence of the person watching being sexually interested in kids.
> This would make cartel execution videos more abhorrent?
I don't really wanna get into a hierarchy of abuse/violence; let's just say they're both bad. But watching a video of a beheading isn't beheading someone. We may have a moral objection to someone deriving pleasure from the watching of it, and we may even worry that without regulation we'd create a market for this abhorrent act, but it's still not the same thing.
> Why would watching or possession of evidence of abuse against a person be an offense against a person?
I didn't say this. I said CSAM is evidence of abuse against a person in a way anime can't be.
> I think it's perceived as abhorrent mostly because it's an evidence of the person watching being sexually interested in kids.
Yup, it's moral outrage. I'm not saying that's good or bad--personally I think there isn't enough moral outrage these day. All I'm arguing is the way we treat people who have CSAM is pretty unhinged, and it's even more absurd when we talk about AI-generated CSAM and like, loli hentai or whatever.
You'd probably enjoy life a lot more if you go touch some grass once in a while. See a squirrel or something.
The original issue was specifically to do with bikini photos - parents often upload pictures of children in bathing suits without this being considered CSAM content, so Grok (and all other AI models) weren't moderating this. Here's the original article from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grok-says-safeguard...
But they did resist locking it down, recall Musk making fun of concerns? They clearly don't take governance seriously, its whatever Musk is gravitating to in his filter bubble.
[flagged]
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/16/nx-s1-5678965/elon-musks-x-to... - after weeks of mocking critics, X’s approach shifted only after investigations mounted
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5689660-xai-investigat... - musk “not aware” of any naked underage images, pushing back on concerns
https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/a-new-form-of-gende... - musk downplays concerns and blames users and hackers
From your NPR article:
> Previously, users could ask Grok to edit images and put people into revealing clothing like bikinis.
It's because bikini photos aren't generally considered CSAM, or weren't until this year. NPR states "Musk mocks critics" but there is no evidence of him mocking CSAM concerns, and the second two documents don't mention Musk making fun of concerns at all.
From your second article:
> musk “not aware” of any naked underage images
There aren't any naked underage images. They were bikini photos as linked to from your first article: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grok-says-safeguard...
You are being intentionally obtuse. Why on earth you would feel the need to play this game when we all know Musk’s character is baffling.
No, the opposite. I’m being acute. You are vaguely (I suspect deliberately vaguely) referring to “CSAM generation“, I’m pointing out the specific issue of generating images of children wearing bathing suits (children wearing bathing suits has historically not been considered CSAM) and giving references to prove it.
“we all know musk’s character” is not an argument, in fact, it’s a textbook example of https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-.... I could make the same comment about his enemies.
Look. OP said he couldn’t remember something so I provided some links to jog his memory. There is no shortage of examples of musk being a shithead for anyone who cares.
I am not going to litigate every detail in these articles because that’s not the point of this thread but for SOME REASON you feel obligated to jump to an oligarch’s defense and I am not going to waste any more time on you.
I mean really, what can I say to someone who is drawing lines around content of children in bikinis as some kind of defense. So weird and gross.
It's not up to the peanut gallery to disprove easily falsifiable statements from easily found public evidence.
Do you mean that Musk not making fun of concerns is easily falsifiable, or Musk making fun of concerns is easily falsifiable? Nobody in this thread has been able to provide evidence that Musk mocked CSAM concerns.
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Reddit did the same. Tumblr died when it banned porn. There seems to be a very perverse incentive for social media platforms to be as permissive as possible.
Personally, I'd be in favor of banning all sexual content on X, but it really feels like a legislative solution applying to all social media platforms might be the best solution.
And yes I realize the slippery slope that could put us on.
The issue wasn't specifically allowing NSFW content, it was allowing anyone to get grok to openly make NSFW deepfakes of anyone without even an attempt at policing things.
> legislative solution
In what country?
[dead]
[flagged]
Yes and we should stop at elsewhere too. " it happened elsewhere n times" is a terrible excuse for inaction.
your iPhone can be used to film non-imaginary CSAM and securely distribute it with Signal over the Internet. think of the children and throw it into a blender.
My phone won't be used for that for as long as it belongs to me. If someone else does that with their phone, they should go to jail. If Elon published that data, he should too
There was a small number of crazy anime nerds rotating accounts tokenmaxxing Grok image generation to generate anime and cosplayer porn shorts with egregiously low yields and no intention of even publishing the results let alone monetizing, something like <1 result per daily quota across few accounts. Grok was briefly focused on adult usage, and they took advantage of that, until it was too much for even xAI. It seems British online advocacy groups tend to use "CSAM" as circumlocution for "anime", perhaps inspired by the fact that both imagined and real figures seen in anime related content always look to be below legal ages to some to the point that said some thinks it can be banned as willfully depicting underaged entities, so maybe this is a push coming from that direction.
[flagged]
I don't necessarily find people generating porn shorts with AI literally wrong(I'm not compatible with AI generated images), but I can see why it can be a problem if the cohort that specifically seek anime style photorealistic videos were absolutely pinning the system at capacity while the rest of the users remained disinterested in it.
I actually have the same opinion about hand drawn arts on social media, it completely exhausts all available resources and simply wins the attention economy, and it _can_ be "problematic" that it does, in some contexts, not necessarily that it concerns me personally. I guess it's always had been that way considering that they used ground up gemstones given by monarchs in medieval biblical life sized nude paintings, just turned up to 1000.
Politely, what on earth point are you trying to make? Whatever it is it really is not coming across well.
[dead]
"We only build and operate the orphan crushing machine, it's people that line up to turn the crank".
There's a lot of machines in the world that can be used to crush orphans, but I'm not aware of any that are designed for that purpose.
your phone, your browser, and the Internet itself are orphan crushing machines too, then.
> Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM
A myth. CSAM is evidence of real-world abuse. Grok fakes are by definition not that.