this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2026
397 points (98.1% liked)

Fuck AI

7597 readers
1037 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In March, a girl’s stepfather took his own life after cops discovered that he had used Grok to create 7,000 sexually explicit images using one photo taken when his stepdaughter was 11 years old, the amended complaint alleged.

Grok allowed the man to generate extreme images depicting incest and rape without flagging any harmful behavior, the complaint said. Seemingly, xAI’s child safety system only intervened after the man input a prompt for “gang rape.” That request sent a CyberTip to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), which alerted law enforcement to the AI CSAM.

Yet the harm was not stopped then, either. Despite mandatory reporting requirements to share information like a user’s IP address when CSAM is flagged, xAI repeatedly refused to help cops or NCMEC identify the user, the complaint alleged. For weeks, xAI allegedly “obstructed this investigation at every turn” and made it harder for “law enforcement efforts to locate, identify, and apprehend the perpetrator.”

Eventually, the stepfather was arrested after cops obtained a warrant to seize his devices. That’s when “a forensic review revealed approximately 7,000 AI-generated images and videos” depicting his stepdaughter, which were allegedly produced using Grok. Without Grok providing users with easy access to “undressing” capabilities, his family doubts he ever would have generated the harmful images, which he allegedly trafficked online in trade for “CSAM produced by other child sex predators.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

plausibly be the same, but that’s not the same as actually knowing.

No research can prove a positive.

Most research in social sciences uses a p-value of 0.05. Statistically, this means that we are expected a 1/20 chance of a type 1 error, a false positive.

It’s more about establishing patterns than “proof” of any kind of absolute law. Human behavior isn’t governed like rigid bodies or genetics.

[–] Jomega@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

I'm more into art and philosophy than science, so if that's your background then I'm not going to argue with you. It's obvious from the way you talk versus how I talk that we're approaching the question from fundamentally different angles. I'll kindly return to up my own ass, where all philosophers go when we're done talking.