[hgoel]

It isn't about "public company", the line is "posted to a public social media platform, with the owner indicating amusement".

If someone uses something one of OpenAI's hosted models to generate illegal content, it isn't automatically spread to anyone that clicks on the post the original image is from. On top of that, OpenAI does not explicitly endorse the use of their models for such activities the way Musk did.

If someone uses a local model to generate illegal content, same thing applies.

I have a hard time believing that you're arguing in good faith. The differences are so blatantly obvious and they don't even require any discussion about guardrails. Grok was being used to edit images and post them on public social media. The technology to edit images has existed for decades now. So here's a direct analogy via Photoshop:

1. In the case of a local model: Someone using a local image editor to edit photos into illicit material and manually distributing them.

2. In the case of a hosted model: Someone using a cloud image editor to edit photos into illicit material and manually distributing them.

3. In the case of Grok: Someone using a cloud image editor to edit photos into illicit material, the cloud image editor automatically distributing it to the public, and the owner of the editor endorsing the material as an exemplar of what their editor is capable of.

In 1 and 2, the editor (ie the AI) was just a neutral tool. In 3 the issue is that the company explicitly endorsed and distributed the material, no longer neutral. This is why it's reputation is of being a CP machine.

[b112]

The leniency that internet companies get in terms of dealing with illegal content comes with the expectation that they're making reasonable efforts to control the distribution of said content.

Your words. Grok was an example, the owner is irrelevant in the discussion.

[hgoel]

Really showing that you aren't engaging in good faith and your repeated incorrect interpretations of my words are out of a desire to cover for Musk.

To spell it out for you further, the owner's actions matter. It doesn't matter that it was specifically Elon doing it. The owner promoting the ability to produce and post illicit content is the opposite of making reasonable efforts to control it!

[b112]

For some inexplicable reason, you've decided to make an entire post I made, about Elon Musk. I was referring to grok as one example of people indicating they wanted anti-porn guardrails, other platforms have been challenged with law suits as well.

If you want, you can substitute character.ai and their need to add age verification, due to pending law suits. It makes no difference. All this noise about Elon is entirely, completely, and absolutely irrelevant to the point I was making. Nothing you have said shows otherwise.

The owners actions, in terms of determining the legal implications for all platforms, for attempts to ban open models, for what guardrails platforms must have, are irrelevant. We're talking about setting standards which will last decades, if not longer, legal precedent, and how this is handled will change the entire marketplace.

Some tweets you didn't like have no importance in this kind of discussion. The stance of an owner of one company, have no importance in this discussion. Grok was used as an example, there are others, as cited above.

No, it doesn't matter that Musk this and Musk that. I don't care. It's not relevant.

You've missed the entire point I was making, entirely and completely, which was that there can not be two standards. If it's illegal to have a model produce porn, or CSAM, or whatever, then it must, I repeat must be application agnostic, be regardless of how that model is run.

Yet here you are, almost frothing at the mouth, on and on about Musk. You're like a bull that saw red somewhere. I don't care about whatever US style politics are involved here. I don't care about Musk. Musk, or US politics are not important to me. Musk has nothing to do with the point I was making.

I don't know how to make this any plainer to you. Any response where you talk about Musk, is an incorrect response. This thread isn't about Musk. I don't care about Musk. I don't care about your opinions of Musk.

Hopefully the above clears up your incredibly weird, out of the blue obsession with Musk as a topic in this thread.

[hgoel]

At this point I just have to assume that you're trolling. Idk how much more explicitly I have to say that it doesn't matter who the owner is, it matters what the owner did.

[b112]

And yet you incessantly go on about Musk, and talk about me as if I'm trying to protect him. You tried to claim that in the last post, right at the top, so yes, you're talking about Musk.

And I've now been immensely clear, even though it should have been clear from my very first post, or at least the second, that in this discussion it's not even remotely relevant what the owner of any company did. Why would it matter? We're talking about local vs corporate compute for models here, and about who creates what baked-in restrictions in models. Not about what some random owner did.

This discussion is about open versus closed models. About them being legislated. About them being controlled. Why are you blathering on about Musk? Why do you keep going on about the actions of any CEO of any company, when I was discussing corporate vs individual liability in these matters? Even now, you seem to think it's relevant what the owner of companies do here. It's not. At all. Why on earth would it be?

I feel as if the largest discussion the world is having today is, "sweep it under the rug". You seem to be trying to say, and don't claim otherwise, as you went on and on about how corporate liability is different than with private models!, that what a person does on their personal computer should have different liability implications than on a corporate leased computer.

At one point you tried to shift this into the realm of "no it's only once it's posted", and that's moving closer to a correct target of personal liability and responsibility. But these issues are now so in the faces of the "normal joe", that the entire internet is about to change.

And the reason for that is, personal liability is coming to the internet.

All the age and identity verification blather is about, as I've been saying here and there for years, personal liability and responsibility. It is entirely ridiculous and irresponsible to place liability for user content at the feet of the makers of tools. Instead, if you post CSAM, or if you make a fake video to slander someone(eg, to screw with elections), or if you incite violence, all of it, one needs to be held personally liable and responsible for that.

That's where the internet is going. Anonymity will continue, of course, when you post to X, to Youtube, to Facebook, your identity will not be immediately disclosed. But they'll have it, as a requirement for posting anything, and a simple warrant will disclose it. Otherwise they'll face criminal liability.

I believe 230 carve outs will change to ensure that this degree of ID verification is a prerequisite for any form of liability exclusion. And really, seeing today's landscape? This is the most free method to continue on the path we're on.

It's the most free, as the concept of forcing companies to be the filter is horrible in comparison. If companies are the filter, guess what happens? They are politically bent, or they alternatively are legal liability concerned to the point that they over-filter. And if companies become "the filter", then that's where true freedom of expression disappears.

Yet if companies are not legally liable, then the weight of liability must lay somewhere. And it should lay on the end user's shoulder. That's where it you the ability to express, to post political satire, where you get the ability to protest.

Imagine a world where the roads were all owned by private companies, and if you wanted to protest politically, you were not granted the right to use those roads?!

That's what corporate liability looks like. And I can assure you, 100%, liability is here.

So your thoughts that companies should be treated "special" only means one thing.

It means the illusion of freedom, whilst your ability to exercise that freedom vanishes.