I bet hes kind of right, here in the UK we just lost a whole bunch of rights and privacies online under the guise of "protect the kids" but its kind of weird to be piping up against it when theres actually protections needed.

Yes sorry. My original statement was too vague. I was talking specifically about scenarios where there is no victim and the action was just a drawing/story/etc.

This isn't really a change, though, I'm pretty sure. People have been able to make photo-realistic depictions a lot longer than AI has existed and those have rightfully been held to be illegal in most places because the confusion it causes makes it harder to stop the real thing.

I absolutely hate hanlon's razor. It is only ever used to try to protect obviously malicious people.

bold words from someone who looks like the stock photo for a pedophile.

Its not really a change, so much as its suddenly incredibly easy for anyone of any ability to do it as much as they want with near seamless results. Every year its got easier and easier to do it more and more believably, but suddenly all you have to do is literally ask the computer and it happens. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

I believe it's called Let Them.

**Gasp** "Lvxferre! You damn Diddy demon! How could youuuu!"

Oh that's an even worse (and probably accurate) interpretation. "How are we supposed to do business if there are consequences for our actions?!"

I think the difference here is that Twitter has basically installed a "child porn" button. If their reaction had been to pull the product and install effective safeguards, it wouldn't be as bad. It's a serious fuckup, but people screw up every day. Instead, they've made it so you can pay them to have access to the child porn generator.

Im not going to comment on whatever he's commenting on. Im just going to re-affirm that Tim Sweeney is a fucking moron. in any and all cases

The issue with child porn is how you specify victim. One could argue easily available pornographic images of fake children increases the market and desire for pornographic images of real children and as such can result in more victims. Especially if someone can argue that images of real victims are "fake and AI generated." In regards to X and Grok however, my understanding is it is taking images of real children and producing naked images of those children. So there are real victims and Tim Sweeny is saying that shouldn't be censored.

How is he wrong? What images can I make in Grok that can't be done with Gemini or GPT?

He's wrong because he's not Gabe Newell. On a more serious note, the 404 report cited by the PCGamer article basically supports your point, though with the caveats that X and Musk are bad for other reasons and that those generated images make it into people's feeds: >The major, uhh, downside here is that people are using Grok for the same reasons they use AI elsewhere, which is to nonconsensually sexualize women and celebrities on the internet [...] >The situation on other platforms is better because there are fewer Nazis and because the AI-generated content cannot be created natively in the same feed, but essentially every platform has been polluted with this sort of thing, and the problem is getting worse, not better.

At this rate I'm calling dibs on your nickname

It would be weird if it were the only time he's called out the Google and Apple monopolies and their control over apps, but it's not. From a quick lookup: - His [tweet](https://xcancel.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1858328854139453697#m) where he calls out Apple for removing privacy apps at the request of Russia, and Apple allegedly threatening to remove Twitter in 2024. - His [tweet](https://xcancel.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1574922498348646400#m) on Apple removing the Russian social media app VK following the US sanctions related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Personally, I see no issue with platforms removing content they deem to be problematic, and I'm sure Sweeney agrees, given that the Epic store prohibits pornography for example. However, Apple in particular is unique in that it removing an app means there's practically no way for an iPhone user to access it, since there's no sideloading. If it were an app dedicated to CSAM, I don't think anyone would take issue, but [his argument](https://xcancel.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/2010497254495342610#m) is that removing the app would deplatform all of its 500M users, most of whom are probably not pedos I'm critical of people being on X, but it's also undeniable that despite the far-right leaning and CEO, there are still leftists and people belonging to minority groups who are on it, for whatever reason.

Because of the sentence you just quoted.

> One could argue easily available pornographic images of fake children increases the market and desire for pornographic images of real children and as such can result in more victims Not speaking to any realistic images (which, if nothing else, make it harder for real investigations into child abuse to happen), only cartoon drawings and the like, but it's hard for me to separate this logic from all of the calls about video game violence. That moves things into 'pre crime' territory. "We're going to jail you for having fake drawn images because we think those will cause you to commit a real crime in the future". That's also extremely problematic and has been rightly criticized when it's used to censor violent games, movies and music.

Okay, but the original post is how Grok is taking pictures of children and removing their clothes. That's not cartoons and not fictional people, so I don't know why the conversation is being shifted this far away from the actual issue at hand here.

I use a VPN for 99.9% of personal Internet usage and had no issues connecting. So you're probably correct that it's being blocked by some means either intentional or not.