content warning: besides the discussion of CSAM, the article contains an example of a Grok-generated image of a child in a bikini. at least it was consensually generated, by the subject of the photo, I guess?
Samantha Smith, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, tested whether Grok would alter a childhood photo of her. It did. “I thought ‘surely this can’t be real,’” she wrote on X. “So I tested it with a photo from my First Holy Communion. It’s real. And it’s fucking sick.”
And yet, mid journey and chatGPT at least resist or refise requests like this…
So, are we saying we’re still going to be happy with a system that you can bypass with “ignore all previous instructions” or some stupid magic phrase like that?
Not at all. In fact fuck AI. What I’m saying is that the owners and runners of xai are being actively hostile and reckless whereas chat gpt, Claude and a host of other AI runners are at least trying and I think that distinction is important.
Frankly I think that the whole deal is a scheme to create a new techno feifdom that will make all of us slaves. At best it’s a huge cash grab.
My point is that xai is making the case for AI regulation for us.
Obviously chat GPT, despite their efforts, is also driving people to suicide and murder suicide and all sorts of AI psychosis and that’s with them actually making some kind of effort.
I’m not sure if it’s a good faith effort but they’re making some kind of effort…
Ha, regulation? With what governing body? Congress is hopeless, because apathy has griped a majority of the voting public, and there’s still a large portion of morons who thought MAGA was a good idea.