I would not say if Grok has a real problem or not but the CCDH that did the study looks like to be a "scam". I don't know who fund them but they have clearly an agenda and would "manufacture" data however they can to support it.
Title of the study and article says that Grok "Generated", but in fact:
> The CCDH then extrapolated
Basically they invent numbers.
They took a sample of 20k generated images, and it is assumed (but I don't know if the source is reliable) that Grok would have generated 4.6 millions image at the same time. So the sample is 00.4%.
If you see the webpage of the CCDH it is a joke their study.
First:
- Images were defined as sexualized if they contain [...] a person in underwear, swimwear or similarly revealing clothing.
- Sexualized Images (Adults & Children): 12,995 found
- Sexualized Images (Likely Children): 101 found
First they invent their own definition, then adequately mixup possible "adult" pictures to give scary numbers.
If it's a truly random sample [1] it's perfectly valid; there would be no reason to think that the other images have less frequency of CSAM.
[1] The methodology just says "To collect the sample, researchers used a licensed third-party tool to select 20,000 posts at random out of all Grok posts that contained an image"
Two of the three examples listed in the article appear to involve real children:
> A selfie uploaded by a schoolgirl was undressed by Grok, turning a “before school selfie” into an image of her in a bikini. As of January 15th this post was still live on X. ... Four images depicting child actors.
I would not say if Grok has a real problem or not but the CCDH that did the study looks like to be a "scam". I don't know who fund them but they have clearly an agenda and would "manufacture" data however they can to support it.
Title of the study and article says that Grok "Generated", but in fact:
> The CCDH then extrapolated
Basically they invent numbers.
They took a sample of 20k generated images, and it is assumed (but I don't know if the source is reliable) that Grok would have generated 4.6 millions image at the same time. So the sample is 00.4%.
If you see the webpage of the CCDH it is a joke their study. First:
First they invent their own definition, then adequately mixup possible "adult" pictures to give scary numbers.What do you propose they do? Manually review every single image generated?
Even if it’s “only” 1 million that would be a math task. Random sampling is the best we can do.
Right... So how much CSAM is an acceptable amount of CSAM in your opinion then?
Who was abused here?
The environment.
The people used as template faces and bodies
I don't like the fact that results are extrapolated. Give me the number you have and only that. Or the title could be "could have generated 23000..."
If it's a truly random sample [1] it's perfectly valid; there would be no reason to think that the other images have less frequency of CSAM.
[1] The methodology just says "To collect the sample, researchers used a licensed third-party tool to select 20,000 posts at random out of all Grok posts that contained an image"
You want them to somehow convince Musk to give them access, and then manually review all images generated?
Anyone would take a sample and then do some math. There's no reason to expend all that time.
Following the links to the source: https://counterhate.com/research/grok-floods-x-with-sexualiz...
We have that 101 images were "Sexualized Images (Likely Children)" after a manual review of 20,000 images.
So the number is 0, because you can't even know if those are children given they don't even exist..
Two of the three examples listed in the article appear to involve real children:
> A selfie uploaded by a schoolgirl was undressed by Grok, turning a “before school selfie” into an image of her in a bikini. As of January 15th this post was still live on X. ... Four images depicting child actors.