[skissane]

> Ok, then let’s just say CSAM by definition of US law.

“CSAM” isn’t a legal category under US law.

“Child pornography” is a legal category under US law. But, according to the 2002 US Supreme Court case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (535 U.S. 234), so-called “virtual child pornography” (imagery produced by CGI or AI, not featuring the images of any identifiable real world minors), is (partially) protected [0] by the 1st Amendment, and excluded from the legal definition of “child pornography” in the US. So if “CSAM by definition of US law” you mean “child pornography”, then a lot of the material Grok was (reportedly) producing which people were labelling “CSAM” wasn’t actually CSAM by that definition.

[0] “partially” because it still might be unprotected due to the difficult-to-prosecute obscenity exception to the 1st Amendment, but it is excluded from the scope of the distinct and much easier-to-prosecute child pornography exception

[afavour]

> not featuring the images of any identifiable real world minors

Right... but the material Grok was producing was featuring real world minors. Again, you're trying really really hard to expand the definition of what we're talking about to give Grok a pass and I do not understand why.

[skissane]

> Again, you're trying really really hard to expand the definition of what we're talking about to give Grok a pass and I do not understand why.

From my perspective, you come across as being more focused on making assumptions about other people’s motivations than on precision.