| that was choosing to generate and distribute child porn for users. This is a slant, a lie of presumption and ignorance. Ignorance of what "open" means, presumption of assigning intent without validation. Some believe that lobotomizing models leads to suboptimal results overall. Some also believe that the user, not the tool is responsible. In these contexts, you'd better call a paint manufacturing company "choosing to enable child porn". I am so sick of US style politics, with its insane labelling by both parties, and their worshippers, with intent to besmirch on every breath, because someone doesn't agree with them in some narrow political context. From outside the US, most can barely tell the difference between a democrat and a republican. Both sides are slimy, smarmy, dishonest, without honour, and spew lies and bull about anyone they don't agree with. It's absolutely disgusting. |
Furthermore, even if I don't make the painting, if I see it and distribute it anyway, I'm still distributing child porn. You don't get to just say "whoopsies, I didn't make it, how could I possibly know the open and visible image was illegal?"
Grok isn't making paint. It's not making monitors. It doesn't send you graphics software. It itself produced pornographic images of real children and distributed them to pedophiles for profit.
And even if we wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, after this came to light and they got in trouble, they disabled this capability for free users while allowing paid users to continue. They knew what they were doing at that point, so no more ignorance plea.
At least open model producers are just distributing software that can produce illicit images. But because they don't actually do it, they can wash their hands of responsibility.