[anildash]

Adobe doesn't provide tools explicitly designed to enable the creation of child pornography — in fact their tools try to prevent its creation — and they don't profit from the sale of it. But, of course, Musk fanboys can be reliably counted upon to support profiteering from child sexual abuse in any form.

"Something you don't like" as a description for the deliberate sexualization of children for profit, as if it's not an objective moral harm, is telling on yourself here. Just because the loudest leaders in Silicon Valley have been trying to convince every one of their sycophants that sexually abusing kids is no big deal doesn't mean the rest of us who are normal have bought into it.

[charcircuit]

Reducing safety filters doesn't mean that it's explicitly designed for child pornography. This is like thinking free speech is designed for child pornography.

[happytoexplain]

You seem to be leaning heavily on analogy, which is inherently flawed. The entire point of analogy is that you are comparing two different things without actually comparing them - just declaring them equal. It's a weak rhetorical tool for petty arguments.

[charcircuit]

I am leaning on analogy as a strategy to try and ground other's thinking about this article since I believe they do not universally hold the idea that tools should micromanage what people are allowed to do with them. I assuming that readers are able to understand how making images via traditional digital tools and via AI tools is the same thing. If I just want to share my own view it I would go on about how it is wrong to add deliberate censorship tools into tools and how letting British people force American companies to censor things is wrong.

[roryirvine]

It's a false analogy because Adobe doesn't actually create child pornography for their users. Nor do they distribute it publicly.

In the case that we're discussing, xAI is accused of using images of these girls to create and distribute child pornography.

The girls are American, and the case is being heard in California. I'm not sure why you're talking about the Adobe and British people, when neither are involved.

[charcircuit]

>Adobe doesn't actually create child pornography for their users

Nor does Grok. Users have to create it themselves. I think this is the fundamental understanding others in this comment thread have had in that they think that Grok itself is doing this.

>I'm not sure why you're talking about the Adobe and British people

I have brought Adobe into the conversation as the develop a competing photo manipulation tool to Grok. I brought British people into the conversation because this article was posted to the BBC. I am disappointed to now learn that the reporter is American and is trying to advocate for such censorship.

[root_axis]

The user doesn't create the image, Grok does. With photoshop, the user does the work, and the resulting product is a function of the user's design skills and manual effort. The distinction here is pretty obvious.