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
[–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

@spit_evil_olive_tips

Yes. Thank you. Exactly.

#Grok is not a person. It's a plug-in.
It has no awareness, intelligence, values, ethics, or even standards.

Grok is an appliance. Like a toaster. It is not sentient.

Blaming Grok for 'making porn' is like blaming a browser for 'showing porn'.

Some person used Grok to make porn.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •