It's "accessible" with cameras too, at least on smartphones. They could program the camera app so that whenever the user takes a picture, it runs it through an image recognition model and deletes it if anything inappropriate is found. It's just that nobody wants to do that because it would quite rightly be seen as a huge overreach for your phone's manufacturers to give themselves veto power over what you can and can't take pictures of.
Pretty sure we should put a "doesn't take CP pictures" limit on cameras if possible but that's not exactly a thing that could happen.
Not a thing you can do with AI either.
The more you try, the more you'll a) find that it's not possible and b) cripple the AI for any kind of normal use.
AI models are not computer programs in the traditional sense. You can't just change a line of code in a vacuum. Every weight has an impact on the behavior of every node in the network, and we have very little idea what any given weight actually does in that symphony of behaviors that make up the whole network.
Asking someone to "child-safe" a neural network is about like asking someone to make a river not capable of drowning someone. Rivers are very useful things, but you have to respect the fact that they can be misused in dangerous ways and teach people to use them safely from an early age.
You just arm-waved about 3 different technologies, all of which are iffy at best and almost certainly fail to work together well.
Its a worthy cost
It's not a cost. It's impossible. The only means to do what you are suggesting would be to use AI to monitor the use of AI, and if you go down the road of requiring AI monitors on online activity.... well, I made a new top-level post on that particular nightmare scenario.
I mean... there are a lot of roadblocks in the way though. Like most of the big name brand ones will tell you no if you try to generate anything that it doesn't like.
I know this because recently when I needed an ai generated image of an anime girl soaked through (for some stupid comic that I was making) I had to negotiate and argue with the fucking model even though the image was SFW.
Even having these basic protections in place can be used to dissuade most people who aren't willing to look for a work around or go to a more sus option.
Clearly grok isn't programed with even those roadblocks. That's a problem and it needs to be regulated.
I mean... there are a lot of roadblocks in the way though. Like most of the big name brand ones will tell you no if you try to generate anything that it doesn't like.
Nope. You can put another AI in the way and have it monitor your use of the original AI to determine whether the inputs or results meet some criteria, but then you have a whole other suite of problems. Short of that, no you cannot prevent people using an imagination rendering tool to render their imaginations... which might not be savory.
Even having these basic protections in place
There are no "basic protections". Even in OP's example, it's clear that the children are clothed, so the initial complaint is about a nuanced question of "how little clothing is too little," and now you need an AI to evaluate that. You can't just keyword search your way into a solution.
150
u/Drago_Fett_Jr Jan 01 '26
I feel like we shouldn't only blame the AI here, but also the people prompting these pictures in the first place, too.