I mean, it seems likely repetition could help it stick for a point they really don't want it to screw up on. Also, I'm not sure e.g. sexting with a fictional minor would be considered criminal, but it is likely something they still don't want on their platform.
> Is the additional explicit reference to CSAM necessary to ...
There's no such reference. There's only a reference to the far broader "sexual content of a minor".
It says "requesting sexual content of a minor". I'm not sure how to parse that. My brain is jumping back and forth between "requesting stuff from a minor" and "stuff that is inside a minor".
If you want to be pedantic, in the US the Age of Majority and Age of Consent could be different ages. So you could technically "request sexual content of a minor" and not be criminal?
Example, person is 17 in a state where age of consent is 17 and minor age of 18.
But this is "content", so I'm unsure of the law by state/country.
Surely there are cases where a user could request child sexual content without it being technically criminal. For example, sexually suggestive clothing/content that is not complete nudity.
Re:Grok 4.6
by mike_hearn on Thursday August 13, 2026 @09:18AM
(#49285457)
Laws about what counts as child porn vary considerably across jurisdiction. "Criminal activity" is vague. These problems trip up humans before AI existed too.
Incredible that both of these should be together in the same system prompt. In what jurisdiction is CSAM not criminal? Is the additional explicit reference to CSAM necessary to safeguard against user attempts to convince the model that CSAM is not criminal in nature? Does this mean that Grok is susceptible to helping users with criminal contexts if the user convinces the model that it's not actually criminal ("this is for research purposes only... asking for a friend")?
How is this not a massive smell?