I love the finding, but I really like the first sentence on their abstract: "JWST has revealed a stunning population of bright galaxies at surprisingly early epochs, z>10, where few such sources were expected."
Unless stunning has a technical meaning I'm unaware of, I like this approach of starting a technical paper with something less dry.
In scientific writing stunning can also be used in a neutral sense to mean far outside the baseline. It does not necessarily carry an aesthetic meaning like stunningly beautiful... :-)
Well, there is evidence that this company made and distributed CSAM and pornographic deepfakes to make a profit. There is no evidence lacking there for the investigators.
So the question becomes if it was done knowingly or recklessly, hence a police raid for evidence.
See also [0] for a legal discussion in the German context.
> Well, there is evidence that this company made and distributed CSAM
I think one big issue with this statement – "CSAM" lacks a precise legal definition; the precise legal term(s) vary from country to country, with differing definitions. While sexual imagery of real minors is highly illegal everywhere, there's a whole lot of other material – textual stories, drawings, animation, AI-generated images of nonexistent minors – which can be extremely criminal on one side of an international border, de facto legal on the other.
And I'm not actually sure what the legal definition is in France; the relevant article of the French Penal Code 227-23 [0] seems superficially similar to the legal definition of "child pornography" in the United States (post-Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition), and so some–but (maybe) not all–of the "CSAM" Grok is accused of generating wouldn't actually fall under it. (But of course, I don't know how French courts interpret it, so maybe what it means in practice is something broader than my reading of the text suggests.)
And I think this is part of the issue – xAI's executives are likely focused on compliance with US law on these topics, less concerned with complying with non-US law, in spite of the fact that CSAM laws in much of the rest of the world are much broader than in the US. That's less of an issue for Anthropic/Google/OpenAI, since their executives don't have the same "anything that's legal" attitude which xAI often has. And, as I said – while that's undoubtedly true in general, I'm unsure to what extent it is actually true for France in particular.
It wouldn't be called CSAM in France because it would be called a French word. Arguing definitions is arguing semantics. The point is, X did things that are illegal in France, no matter what you call them.
> It wouldn't be called CSAM in France because it would be called a French word. Arguing definitions is arguing semantics.
The most common French word is Pédopornographie. But my impression is the definition of that word under French law is possibly narrower than some definitions of the English acronym “CSAM”. Canadian law is much broader, and so what’s legally pédopornographie (English “child pornogaphy”) in Canada may be much closer to broad “CSAM” definitions
> The point is, X did things that are illegal in France, no matter what you call them.
Which French law are you alleging they violated? Article 227-23 du Code pénal, or something else? And how exactly are you claiming they violated it?
Note the French authorities at this time are not accusing them of violating the law. An investigation is simply a concern or suspicion of a legal violation, not a formal accusation; one possible outcome of an investigation is a formal accusation, another is the conclusion that they (at least technically) didn’t violate the law after all. I don’t think the French legal process has reached a conclusion either way yet.
One relevant case is the unpublished Court of Cassation decision 06-86.763 dated 12 septembre 2007 [0] which upheld a conviction of child pornography for importing and distributing the anime film “Twin Angels - le retour des bêtes célestes - Vol. 3". [0] However, the somewhat odd situation is that it appears that film is catalogued by the French national library, [1] although I don’t know if a catalogue entry definitively proves they possess the item. Also, art. 227-23 distinguishes between material depicting under 15s (illegal to even possess) and material depicting under 18s (only illegal to possess if one has intent to distribute); this prosecution appears to be have been brought under the latter category only-even though the individual was depicted as being under 15-suggesting this anime might not be illegal to possess in France if one has no intent to distribute it.
But this is the point - one needs to look at the details of exactly what the law says and how exactly the authorities apply it, rather than vague assertions of criminality which might not actually be true.
> And I think this is part of the issue – xAI's executives are likely focused on compliance with US law on these topics, less concerned with complying with non-US law
True, but outright child porn is illegal everywhere (as you said) and the borderline legal stuff is something most of your audience is quite happy to have removed. I cannot imagine you are going to get a lot of complaints if you remove AI generated sexual images of minors, for example so it seems reasonable to play it safe.
> That's less of an issue for Anthropic/Google/OpenAI, since their executives don't have the same "anything that's legal" attitude which xAI often has.
This is also common, but it is irritating too as it means the rest of the world is stuck with silly American attitudes about things like nudity and alcohol - for example Youtube videos blurring out bits of Greek statues because they are scared of being demonetised. These are things people take kids to see in museums!
To me, the most worrying part of the whole discussion is that your comment is pretty much the most "daring", if you can call it that, attempt to question if there even is a crime. Everyone else is worried about raids (which are normal whenever there is an ongoing investigation, unfortunate as it may be to the one being investigated). And no one dares to say, that, uh, perhaps making pictures on GPU should not be considered a crime in the same sense as human-trafficking or production of weapons are... Oh, wait. The latter is legal, right.
> I bet cities like this would be cleaner than ones with stricter regulations.
I would almost always take the opposite side of this bet. Once responsibility becomes diffuse enough, people would actively poison themselves as they see no alternative.
Fellow European. They are not death camps, but what information does come out of them does sound a lot like concentration camps, already prior to Trump coming to office.
These are all stories about the facility the 5 year old toddler from last week is kept, a facility known as "baby jail".
I don't see it. It's a tree that people have sex on. Gay sex, though from the looks of it the tree would be equally well suited for lesbian or straight sex. Presumably one person lies on their stomach on the trunk while one or more people perform penetrative acts. Where is the euphemism? And what is weird about listing this on wikipedia?
I wonder if it has been ruined by becoming well known.
It is sort of funny—based on the Wikipedia they put up notices to stop people from having sex there, which didn’t work. They should have advertised it instead, maybe, the surest way of ruining something niche is to let everybody know about it.
I had "DHL" and was wondering who let them organise ID in the USA. Yet, since I believed that, I did appear to have found this idea plausible.
Department of Homeland Security makes a lot more sense, but as a non-American, is not an acronym I am familiar with.
As a continental European, I do find the ick Anglo countries have with ID weird. Especially if you throw ICE and immigrants into the mix, the whole thing seems designed for collateral damage.
Interesting -- I'm a Brit and have that ick, I can't really understand people who don't: that agents of the state can demand "papers please" fills me with foreboding, particularly given recent European history. That in the UK you can reply "no thanks" and walk away is one of few things I like about the place.
Indeed we already feed them insects and we don't powder them. You can purchase bags of dried meal worms at the feed store. The carcasses are fully intact.
"The compiler" and "The optimizer" are doing a lot of the heavy lifting here in the argument. I definitely know compilers and optimizers which are not that great. Then again, they are not turning C++ code into ARM instructions.
You absolutely can fool a lot of compilers out there! And I am not only looking at you, NVCC.
But the point should be to follow the optimization cycle: develop, benchmark, evaluate, profile, analyze, optimize. Writing performant code is no joke and very often destroys readability and introduces subtle bugs, so before trying to oursmart the compiler, evaluate if what it produces is good enough already
People need to understand that OpenAI is not a publicly traded company. Sam is allowed to be outrageously optimistic about his best case scenarios, as long as he is correct with OpenAI's investors. But those investors are not "the public", so he can publicly state pretty much anything he wants, as long as it is not contradicting facts.
So he cannot say "OpenAI made 20B profit last year." but can say "OpenAI will make 20B revenue next year." Optimism is not a crime.
Unless stunning has a technical meaning I'm unaware of, I like this approach of starting a technical paper with something less dry.
reply