No, you are defending pedophiles. Stop it. It’s not a good look.
Imagine an artist consortium in Maine run by a venture capitalist. Imagine they take comissions - you submit your request and electronic payment, and they email your art back to you in a week. Protected first amendment “speech”? OK. Now imagine they’re well known for generating csam and the CEO refuses to intervene. First amendment doesn’t protect them or the CEO, and an awful lot of them are going to jail for a long time.
Was there anything the CEO could have done? Of course there was. Is there anything LLM companies could do? You’re flat out lying if you say there isn’t. And unlike you, I don’t care if they as a company decide to refuse to process any nude images as a result of their unwillingness to take on the risk or the complexity. But I think it’s a lot easier than people claim for a company that literally makes very sophisticated neural networks anyway and it wouldn’t stop them making image manipulation ai.
No, you are defending pedophiles. Stop it. It’s not a good look.
Imagine an artist consortium in Maine run by a venture capitalist. Imagine they take comissions - you submit your request and electronic payment, and they email your art back to you in a week. Protected first amendment “speech”? OK. Now imagine they’re well known for generating csam and the CEO refuses to intervene. First amendment doesn’t protect them or the CEO, and an awful lot of them are going to jail for a long time.
Was there anything the CEO could have done? Of course there was. Is there anything LLM companies could do? You’re flat out lying if you say there isn’t. And unlike you, I don’t care if they as a company decide to refuse to process any nude images as a result of their unwillingness to take on the risk or the complexity. But I think it’s a lot easier than people claim for a company that literally makes very sophisticated neural networks anyway and it wouldn’t stop them making image manipulation ai.