87
Grok can't apologize. Grok isn't sentient. So why do headlines keep saying it did? (www.readtpa.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
NSFW 14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

archive link

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

@spit_evil_olive_tips

I want lists of the "news" sites that said AI apologised. Will they ask their keyboards to apolgize for their headlines?

Cancel all of them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Reuters is the worst offender that I'm aware of. they sneakily changed their headline and rewrote the article:

    Elon Musk's Grok AI floods X with sexualized photos of women and minors

    but luckily someone archived it, with the original title:

    Grok says safeguard lapses led to images of 'minors in minimal clothing' on X

    (and you can still see that original headline in the URL of the Reuters link above)

    besides the headline, that original article is only 7 short paragraphs and contains 4 "Grok said..." and a "Grok gave no further details" - it's not just quoting Grok like it's a real person, it's only quoting Grok and no one else.

    and almost as infuriating as the "Grok said" shit, the Reuters headline also repeated the fucking disgusting "minors in minimal clothing" euphemism that Grok itself used in its "statement".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    Journalists love using AI as a source because it's a creative way of using the passive voice which sounds more neutral. Instead of attributing an action to a person like "Elon Musk's Website Used for Generating CSAM" historically they'd use something passive, impersonal and vague like "Vulgar Pictures Are Being Generated On X", but if you're relatively informed you read past the phrasing and picture how Musk is accountable. Now journalists can use the active voice so it appears more tangible but pin in on AI to sound neutral and hold nobody accountable, which serves the status quo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent