I think that's silly. Do we really live in an age where we feel it's better to simply not communicate with people in the slightest?
Give them a call, you're not harassing them. If they choose not to answer or call back a voice mail number, then you can presume they don't want to be contacted.
Before posting this idea online... Maybe, possibly, but personally I still think it's a bad idea.
After posting this on HN - no! If you think it's a good idea, so will other people reading this. (And others have before you) After the post reaches the front page - absolutely no - there's a bunch of socially awkward people already thinking about calling the author and they really should NOT DO THAT.
The author owes us absolutely nothing and if they want to disappear, that's their right. Calling them is demanding their time in a not trivial to ignore way. Just write an email that can be deleted async.
You are right: it is silly, but also, given the amount of robo-calls in the US, cold calling someone you don't know is a good way to be put on auto-spam.
If you really want to reach out, his email seems to be the way he prefers to be reached, so that's what I'd recommend.
> I think that's silly. Do we really live in an age where we feel it's better to simply not communicate with people in the slightest?
I agree it’s silly. But it’s also the prevailing view that I’ve seen.
I still answer calls, even if 95% of them these days are either phishing attempts or vendors trying to sell me stuff. But my friends will text me first and say “can I call you” even if I say they can just call.
We all know what kind if information the Trump administration and their allies want to spread: misinformation, disinformation and right wing propaganda. Then they accuse anyone fact checking it or otherwise of 'censorship' when they refuse to allow it to spread.
I would be curious to hear this as well. I'm 47 now and my eyesight has been getting worse. Dr. said it's normal and my eyes are good but definitely harder to read screens then it used to be.
CSAM does not have a universal definition. In Sweden for instance, CSAM is any image of an underage subject (real or realistic digital) designed to evoke a sexual response. If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM.
> If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM.
> No abuse of a real minor is needed.
Even the Google "AI" knows better than that. CSAM "is considered a record of a crime, emphasizing that its existence represents the abuse of a child."
Putting a bikini on a photo of a child may be distasteful abuse of a photo, but it is not abuse of a child - in any current law.
> Även en bild där ett barn t.ex. genom speciella kameraarrangemang
framställs på ett sätt som är ägnat att vädja till sexualdriften, utan att
det avbildade barnet kan sägas ha deltagit i ett sexuellt beteende vid
avbildningen, kan omfattas av bestämmelsen.
Which translated means that the children does not have to be apart of sexual acts and indeed undressing a child using AI could be CSAM.
I say "could" because all laws are open to interpretation in Sweden and it depends on the specific image. But it's safe to say that many images produces by Grok are CSAM by Swedish standards.
" Strange that there was no disagreement before "AI", right? Yet now we have a clutch of new "definitions" all of which dilute and weaken the meaning. "
Are you from Sweden? Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"? Or is it some USDefaultism where Americans assume their definition was universal?
"No. I used this interweb thing to fetch that document from Sweden, saving me a 1000-mile walk."
So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition?
" I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement. "
Sorry, there are lots of different judical definitions about CSAM in different countries, each with different edge cases and how to handle them. I very doubt it, there is a disaggrement.
But my guess about your post is, that an American has to learn again there is a world outside of the US with different rules and different languages.
> So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition?
I guess you didn't read the doc. It is in English.
I too doubt there's material disagreement between judicial definitions. The dubious definitions I'm referring to are the non-judicial fabrications behind accusations such as the root of this subthread.
> Even the Google "AI" knows better than that. CSAM "is [...]"
Please don't use the "knowledge" of LLMs as evidence or support for anything. Generative models generate things that have some likelihood of being consistent with their input material, they don't "know" things.
Just last night, I did a Google search related to the cell tower recently constructed next to our local fire house. Above the search results, Gemini stated that the new tower is physically located on the Facebook page of the fire department.
Does this support the idea that "some physical cell towers are located on Facebook pages"? It does not. At best, it supports that the likelihood that the generated text is completely consistent with the model's input is less than 100% and/or that input to the model was factually incorrect.
2. disseminates, transfers, provides, exhibits, or otherwise makes such an image of a child available to another person,
3. acquires or offers such an image of a child,
4. facilitates contacts between buyers and sellers of such images of children or takes any other similar measure intended to promote trade in such images, or
5. possesses such an image of a child or views such an image to which he or she has gained access
shall be sentenced for a child pornography offense to imprisonment for at most two years.
Then there's Proposition 2009/10:70, which is a clarifying document on how the law should be interpreted:
"To depict a child in a pornographic image entails the production of such an image of a child. An image can be produced in various ways, e.g., by photographing, filming, or drawing a real child. Through various techniques, more or less artificial images can also be created. For criminal liability, it is not required that the image depicts a real child; images of fictitious children are also covered. New productions can also be created by reproducing or manipulating already existing depictions, for example, by editing film sequences together in a different order or by splicing an image of a child’s head onto an image of another child’s body."
Let me quote again: Pay attention to c.iv specifically:
(c) ‘child pornography’ means:
(i) any material that visually depicts a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct;
(ii) any depiction of the sexual organs of a child for primarily sexual purposes;
(iii) any material that visually depicts any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct or any depiction of the sexual organs of any person appearing to be a child, for primarily sexual purposes; or
(iv) realistic images of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
Thanks. I paid attention but still didn't see how:
realistic images of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
covers the example in question:
If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM.
Thanks, but what "the" actual law? Your one doesn't contain the purported Swedish CSAM definition, or any for that matter. Nor does it even mention abuse.
It has been since at least 2012 here in Sweden. That case went to our highest court and they decided a manga drawing was CSAM (maybe you are hung up on this term though, it is obviously not the same in Swedish).
The holder was not convicted but that is besides the point about the material.
You are both arguing semantics. A pornographic image of a child. That's illegal no matter what it's called. I say killing, you say murder, same law though, still illegal.
I'm not supporting CSAM. I'm supporting the defence of the term CSAM from attempts at dilution and diminution which downplay the true severity of this appaling crime.
That's the problem with CSAM arguments, though. If you disagree with the current law and think it should be loosened, you're a disgusting pedophile. But if you think it should be tightened, you're a saint looking out for the children's wellbeing. And so laws only go one way...
You don't see a huge difference between abusing a child (and recording it) vs drawing/creating an image of a child in a sexual situation? Do you believe they should have the same legal treatment? In Japan for instance the latter is legal.
He made no judgement in his comment, he just observed the fact that the term csam - in at least the specified jurisdiction - applies to generated pictures of teenagers, wherever real people were subjected to harm or not.
I suspect none of us are lawyers with enough legal knowledge of the French law to know the specifics of this case
This comment is a part of the chain that starts with a very judgemental comment and is an answer to a response challenging that starting one. You don't need legal knowledge of the French law to want to distinguish real child abuse from imaginary. One can give arguments why the latter is also bad, but this is not an automatic judgment, should not depend on the laws of a particular country and I, for one, am deeply shocked that some could think it's the same crime of the same severity.
Are you implying that it's not abuse to "undress" a child using AI?
You should realize that children have committed suicide before because AI deepfakes of themselves have been spread around schools. Just because these images are "fake" doesn't mean they're not abuse, and that there aren't real victims.
When you undress a child with AI, especially publicly on Twitter or privately through DM, that child is abused using the material the AI generated. Therefore CSAM.
Musk's social media platform has recently been subject to intense scrutiny over sexualised images generated and edited on the site using its AI tool Grok.
Archive.today CAPTCHA page executes DDoS; Wikipedia considers banning site https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-might-...
reply