Teens sue xAI over Grok's pornographic images of them (bbc.com)

by 1659447091 48 comments 146 points
Read article View on HN

48 comments

[−] paxys 61d ago
I bet shareholders of SpaceX are thrilled to be exposed to this for no reason
[−] bigyabai 61d ago
SpaceX owners do not care. If they were risk-averse, they would have dumped SpaceX like it was toxic waste.

In a broader sense, this "I bet Oracle shareholders hate their bad PR" attitude is really zero-sum. It's pervasive on HN, and we rarely ever see bad PR snowball beyond niche discussions. I want $BIGCORP to collapse as much as the next guy, but the outrage-derived comments don't seem to reflect the market's response.

[−] rsynnott 60d ago
I mean, there's "this is a risky investment in rockets and stuff" and then there is "this is a risky investment in rockets and stuff which has for some reason been coupled to a CSAM generator". One is going to be more off-putting to investors than the other.
[−] bigyabai 60d ago
I'll actually steelman against this. For the majority of SpaceX holders, they really do not care. They did not sell their stock when SpaceX started taking NRO contracts. They didn't grow a conscience when Starlink usage was limited in occupied Ukrainian territory. They aren't protesting rocket launches that put Israeli satellites into orbit, aiding and abetting a likely genocide of civilian populations. You think fake child abuse imagery will finally burst the dam? After all of this?

Like I said; some companies revel in their bad PR. Meta, Oracle, Microsoft, all of their misdeeds are untouchable. SpaceX isn't going anywhere, and everyone holding their shares knows it.

[−] manoDev 61d ago
You would lose this bet.
[−] josefritzishere 60d ago
This is a legit tech topic. I disagree with the flagging. Legal and responsible technology use is a material area of discussion.
[−] ndsipa_pomu 60d ago
As there exist laws to protect against someone abusing someone's name/reputation (i.e. libel and slander), there should also be laws to protect against abusing someone's image. It does not seem reasonable for people/companies to be allowed to manipulate an image of someone to misrepresent a situation.
[−] coolguysailer 61d ago
I'm kind of curious what precedent this will set. It's pretty easy to create deepfake sexual content already and has been for years now. The grok thing is absurdly easy though on some level. To actually get full blown sexual content though I think is substantially more difficult and probably falls into the realm of hacking almost, that being said, it is of course possible. But it makes me wonder where the line lives for something like this. The people who did this are obviously scum of course and deserve to be punished, but by that argument facebook/instagram/whatsapp/whatever group-chats of leaked sex tapes have probably done far more damage.
[−] charcircuit 61d ago
[flagged]
[−] DocTomoe 60d ago
Missing from such articles is a key information: who paid for the lawyers? I doubt teenage income would pay for a retainer.

As so often, following the money will reveal who actually has an interest here.