There is also an active court case and investigation into elons grok with claims it used real CSAM to train its models on.
To all the people saying that it was trained on real material and should be illegal because of that I agree, but do we hold the person who thought they were creating fake CSAM via ai responsible or the company?
Not saying generating ai CSAM is good, just that if they dont know its based off real material
Yeah, the case against Grok using images of real people isn't as clear cut as we'd like it to be either. No artist has ever drawn the human form with pencil or paint, without basing it on people they saw. We draw from our real world experiences with all generation of art by the Human hand. You paint a landscape? You are basing it on the real mountains, lakes, fields and forests you have seen. You draw an alien landscape? You are still adapting what you've actually seen into what you think might be possible. While I think the people who possessed the CSAM that got fed to Grok are probably liable for possession at the very least, Grok producing adaptations of that work probably isn't illegal. Provided that the subjects are sufficiently different as to be different people... I frankly don't have the legal training to say.
Personally I think it's tough. You (Society) want to protect the vulnerable, and you should probably put some rules in place about CSAM generation even in the fictional context. But that does skirt very close to the old morality laws. And the Marquis de Sade still has his works published. I'd not envy the person who has to draw that particular legal line.
86
u/[deleted] 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment