> legal liability is on the person who posts it, not who hosts the tool.

In the specific case of grok posting deepfake nudes on X. Doesn't X both create and post the deepfake?

My understanding was, Bob replies in Alice's thread, "@grok make a nude photo of Alice" then grok replies in the thread with the fake photo.

That specific action is still instigated by Bob.

Where grok is at risk is not responding after they are notified of the issue. It’s trivial for grock to ban some keywords here and they aren’t, that’s a legal issue.

Sure Bob is instigating the harassment, then X.com is actually doing the harassment. Or at least, that's the case plaintiff's attorneys are surely going to be arguing.

I don't see how it's fundamentally any different to mailing someone harassing messages or distressing objects.

Sure, in this context the person who mails the item is the one instigating the harassment but it's the postal network that's facilitating it and actually performing the "last mile" of harassment.

The very first time it happened X is likely off the hook.

However notification plays a role here, there’s a bunch of things the post office does if someone tries to use them to do this regularly and you ask the post office to do something. The issue therefore is if people complain and then X does absolutely nothing while having a plethora of reasonable options to stop this harassment.

https://faq.usps.com/s/article/What-Options-Do-I-Have-Regard...

You may file PS Form 1500 at a local Post Office to prevent receipt of unwanted obscene materials in the mail or to stop receipt of "obscene" materials in the mail. The Post Office offers two programs to help you protect yourself (and your eligible minor children).

The difference is the post office isn't writing the letter.

Grok posts the pictures publicly, everyone can see them.

The postal network transports a letter, and only the person reading the letter can see the contents.

These situations are in no way comparable.

if grok never existed and X instead ran a black-box-implementation "press button receive CP" webapp, X would be legally culpable and liable each time a user pressed the button, for production plus distribution

the same is true if the webapp has a blank "type what you want I'll make it for you" field and the user types "CP" and the webapp makes it.

Just because someone tells you to produce child pornography you don't have to do it just because you are able to. Other model providers don't have the problem...

that is an ethical and business problem, not entirely a legal problem (currently). hopefully, it will universally be a legal problem in the near future, though. and frankly, anyone paying grok (regardless of their use of it) is contributing to the problem

It's only an ethics and business problem if the produced images are purely synthetic and in most jurisdictions even that is questionable. Grok produced child pornography of real children which is a legal problem.

It is not ethical to wait for legal solutions and in the meantime just producing fake child pornography with your AI solution.

Legal things are amoral, amoral things are legal. We have a duty to live morally, legal is only words in books.

I live morally. I assume you do - the vast vast majority of reading this comment will not ask AI to produce child porn. However a small minority will, which is why we have laws and police.

If you have to wait for the government to tell you to stop producing CP before you stop, you are morally bankrupt.

>and at the federal level, the legal liability is on the person who posts it, not who hosts the tool. this was a mistake that will likely be corrected over the next six years

[citation needed]

Historically hosts have always absolutely been responsible for the materials they host, see DMCA law, CSAM case law...

no offense but you completely misinterpreted what i wrote. i didnt say who hosts the materials, i said who hosts the tool. i didnt mention anything about the platform, which is a very relevant but separate party.

if you think i said otherwise, please quote me, thank you.

> Historically hosts have always absolutely been responsible for the materials they host,

[citation needed] :) go read up on section 230.

for example with dmca, liability arises if the host acts in bad faith, generates the infringing content itself, or fails to act on a takedown notice

that is quite some distance from "always absolutely". in fact, it's the whole point of 230

pedantically correct, but there is a good argument that if you host an AI tool that can easially be made to make child porn that no longer applies. a couple years ago when AI was new you could argue that you never thought anyone would use your tool to create child porn. However today it is clear some people are doing that and you need to prevent that.

Note that I'm not asking for perfection. However if someone does manage to create child porn (or any of a number of currently unspecified things - the list is likely to grow over the next few years), you need to show that you have a lot of protections in place and they did something hard to bypass them.

> so, no, i don't think you will see robotaxis on the roads in blue states

Truly baffled by this genre of comment. "I don't think you will see <thing that is already verifiably happening> any time soon" is a pattern I'm seeing way more lately.

Is this just denying reality to shape perception or is there something else going on? Are the current driverless operations after your knowledge cutoff?

robotaxi is the name of the tesla unsupervised driving program (as stated in the title of this hn post) and if you live in a parallel reality where they're currently operating unsupervised in a blue state, or if texas finally flipped blue for you, let me know how's going for you out there!

for the rest of us aligned to a single reality, robotaxis are currently only operating as robotaxis (unsupervised) in texas (and even that's dubious, considering the chase car sleight of hand).

of course, if you want to continue to take a weasely and uncharitable interpretation of my post because i wasn't completely "on brand", you are free to. in which case, i will let you have the last word, because i have no interest in engaging in such by-omission dishonesty.

> robotaxi is the name of the tesla unsupervised driving program

“robotaxi” is a generic term for (when the term was coined, hypothetical) self-driving taxicabs, that predates Tesla existing. “Tesla Robotaxi” is the brand-name of a (slightly more than merely hypothetical, today) Tesla service (for which a trademark was denied by the US PTO because of genericness). Tesla Robotaxi, where it operates, provides robotaxis, but most robotaxis operating today are not provided by Tesla Robotaxi.

> Tesla 'Robotaxi' adds 5 more crashes in Austin in a month – 4x worse than humans

hm yes i can see where the confusion lies

You were using it in the general sense, unless you believe the "extensive road safety laws and civil liability precedent" only apply to Tesla branded Robotaxis. If you do believe that I'd love to hear why.

I'm not one to nitpick grammar but if you want to convey something is a proper noun you capitalize it.

> You were using it in the general sense

no, i wasn't. i am telling you i wasn't and i have already told you i wasn't. how many more times do you need to be told?

> unless you believe the "extensive road safety laws and civil liability precedent" only apply to Tesla branded Robotaxis

i was talking about tesla robotaxis, sure.

please quote me where i said that it only applies to them. otherwise, you're making shit up in your head and accusing me of it :)

> no, i wasn't. i am telling you i wasn't and i have already told you i wasn't.

Due to your poor writing, what you intended to write and what you actually wrote were different. Though you still don't appear to understand what you wrote, I am now satisfied you made the error unintentionally. Hope this gives you peace.

I do understand that there was minor ambiguity, but many people were able to understand what i was talking about (and upvoted me accordingly) without issue. I think that your interpretation is poor. Your failing is that you assumed the worst interpretation, and then attacked over a statement that made no sense to you without asking for clarification.

in addition, i made it explicitly clear to you MULTIPLE times what i was talking about, and you still struggled with resolving the ambiguity.

please count how many times i repeated it to you, and use that to inform your own knowledge of your limitations to absorb new information

anyways it's clear that this conversation is at an end, so i will let you have the last word, if you wish.