Charlie StrossJan 20

RE: https://telescoper.blog/2026/01/19/barry-wards-letter-about-grok-ai/

Translation for Americans: a member of the Irish parliament (the Dail) who happens to be a barrister (an attorney specialising in advocacy in front of a judge, including criminal prosecution/defense) has formally written to the head of the Irish cybercrime unit setting out applicable charges against X/Grok and sternly requesting formal prosecution of that company on child pornography/trafficking charges.

Show threadVincent BerndsenJan 20

@cstross

Sounds like a long shot to me. There is no victim here. Yes, many understandably find it to be upsetting and yes, it can be against platform policies. But I don't see how there is a crime here.

A platform doesn't need to adhere to a specific country's law, only to the law of the country of registration. Look away, block it from your feed is my advice.

Show threadJon
@VBerndsen @cstross a company that is violating a country's laws may be able to avoid consequences of a legal verdict against them, but they most definitely can be prevented from doing business in that country.
Jan 20 at 11:02pmWeb
Show threadVincent BerndsenJan 20
@oddhack @cstross That's logical and true. I don't think that's the case either. AI images and video can be upsetting, but there is no legal precedent anywhere that they can be considered real material. What should be done imo is that platform policies are adhered to and that all AI generated content must always be marked as such. That last thing should be local law everywhere.
Show threadCharlie StrossJan 21

@VBerndsen @oddhack Actually, generative CSAM is very clearly illegal here in the UK (which is not Ireland) and I believe in Ireland too. Art depicting minors in sexual poses is illegal.

I think you're generalizing globally from a hyper-local expectation of US-style first amendment "protected speech", which is very much not the norm internationally.

Show threadVincent BerndsenJan 21
@cstross @oddhack Would be appreciated if you can share the law that states that and an example of jurisprudence.
Show threadCharlie StrossJan 21

@VBerndsen @oddhack Start reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Make sure you get to the bit about "pseudo-photographs" covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Order_Act_1994 —specifically part VII bans simulated child pornography, possession of which is a strict liability offense (there's no requirement for the prosecution to prove intent—someone throws a print-out on your lawn, bang: you're guilty).

Child pornography laws in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Show threadVincent BerndsenJan 21
@cstross @oddhack I appreciate your efforts, but this is not about generative AI.
Show threadCharlie StrossJan 21
@VBerndsen @oddhack Doesn't matter: the training data set for an LLM that can output kiddie porn must include kiddie porn, so Grok is guilty of a strict liability offense (possessing CSAM in its training set). It's also guilty of storing and transmitting the stuff. (Yes, caches count as "storage". UK law is expansive on what counts, not narrowly restrictive, and there's no "free speech" protection here. Irish law forked off UK law about 103 years ago but both follow EU norms.)
Show threadVincent BerndsenJan 21
@cstross @oddhack Let's see what a UK judge says about this. The law (in each country) must be clear about that. Not only for LLMs but as well for users.
Show threadCharlie StrossJan 21
@VBerndsen @oddhack In the UK X has been referred to the regulatory authorities who are considering prosecution. this case is in Ireland.
Show threadJeremy le fouJan 21
@cstross @VBerndsen @oddhack By the way - reply guy above only opened his masto account yesterday. Seems to be a troll, trying to take your time. Intentionally obtuse and demanding you give more references. Just block him.
Show threadJonJan 21
@leftyknowitall agreed.