Any lawyers around? I would assume (IANAL) that Section 230 does not apply to content created by an agent owned by the platform, as opposed to user-uploaded content. Also it seems like their failure to create safeguards opens up the possibility of liability.
And of course all of this is narrowly focused on CSAM (not that it should be minimized) and not on the fact that every person on X, the everything app, has been opened up to the possibility of non-consensual sexual material being generated of them by Grok.
The CSAM aspects aren't necessarily as affected by 230: to the extent that you're talking about it being criminal, 230 doesn't apply at all there.
For civil liability, 230 really shouldn't apply; as you say, 230's shield is about avoiding vicarious liability for things other people post. This principle stretches further than you might expect in some ways but here Grok just is X (or xAI).
Nothing's set in stone much at all with how the law treats LLMs but an attempt to say that Grok is an independent entity sufficient to trigger 230 but incapable of being sued itself, I don't see that flying. On the other hand the big AI companies wield massive economic and political power, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them push for and get explicit liability carveouts that they claim are necessary for America to maintain its lead in innovation etc. etc., whether those come through legislation or court decisions.
> non-consensual sexual material being generated of them by Grok
They should disable it in the Netherlands in this case since it really sounds like a textbook slander case and the spreader can also be held liable. note: it's not the same as in the US despite using the same word, deepfakes have been proven as slander and this is no different. Especially if you know it's fake by using "AI". There have been several cases of pornographic deep fakes, all of which were taken down quickly, in which the poster/creator was sentenced. The unfortunate issue even of taking posts down quickly is unfortunately the rule which states that if something is on the internet it stays on the internet. The publisher always went free due to acting quickly and not creating it. I would like to see where it goes when both publisher and creator are the same entity, and they do nothing to prevent it.
Yeah this is pretty funny. Seeing all these discussions about section 230 and the American constitution...
Nobody in the Netherlands gives one flying fuck about American laws what GROK is doing violates many Dutch laws. Our parliament actually did it's job and wrote some stuff about revenge porn, deep fakes and artificial CP.
And of course all of this is narrowly focused on CSAM (not that it should be minimized) and not on the fact that every person on X, the everything app, has been opened up to the possibility of non-consensual sexual material being generated of them by Grok.