Prompts are in the appendix: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16800
I don’t know how far you get on the free tier but it should be at least enough for a proof of principle; to get other people to chip in. You didn’t have qualms demanding other people should do this for free.
Mind that this is a serious GDPR violation in Europe. So there will be serious pressure on AI companies to prevent this kind of use.
And how does that work legally?
I think you are just not making any sense.
Hmm. Maybe but it is not the same problem as those discussed in OP. I also have some doubts about the paper, but that’s another story. You could try it out?
Uh. So… Prosecuting bad. Not prosecuting those who do not cooperate with the prosecutors also bad because hypocrisy.
I think if any other (smaller) site were continually posting CSAM without moderation, it would be banned.
On what legal grounds would that happen?
Uh. You do understand that this law breaking includes not cracking down hard enough on illegal content? Like that Hamas slogan?
What is?
I don’t think you can do literally the same thing on the Epstein files. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you have in mind.
There were reports of people trying to unredact the files almost immediately.
People in the English-speaking countries generally don’t have government issued ID beyond a driver’s license. That’s also true for the UK. Historically, ID cards are connected to military conscription. The UK could rely on the Navy for defense and did not maintain vast land armies like the continental nations. Political initiatives to introduce ID cards are usually rejected by voters as totalitarian overreach.
The former slave states in the US have a history of using procedural rules to exclude blacks from voting. After the end of slavery, there was formally equality before the law. So, laws were created to maintain the status quo that were non-discriminatory on their face. EG literacy tests. This not only targeted blacks who were denied an education. Administering such tests was fully in the hands of local elites. They could be made arbitrarily hard to black people, while politically reliable white illiterates could be excused.
Legally, the people in the polling station may require you to show ID. It’s just never done.
This is about GDPR. A German court recently made a similar judgment wrt TikTok, but that is being appealed.
I remember a guy about 3 years ago trying that grift with images. Went nowhere because the images it flagged as the “source” looked nothing like the generated images. In music, it might be more successful. Marvin Gaye’s estate showed the way.
Hmm. What are the chances that they manage to sneak such a fraudulent scheme past courts or lawmakers?
I don’t need an incentive to be truthful. I don’t know why someone should misrepresent readily checkable facts.
Is that clickfarm your moneymaker? jfc
YSK that this is a) ragebait farming you for ad revenue and b) disinformation.
In the FT article referenced, there is no mention of open source.
Neither on his LI, which has a free access link to the FT article: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kent-walker-5963bb198_google-warns-eu-against-erecting-walls-activity-7428100995995398144-I9Ac
That may be part of the reason they are doing this. There’s a noticeable push for more regulation and enforcement.
Yeah. I understand what you mean. That is simply not true. Ok, teachable moment.
In Germany, that slogan is considered a Hamas slogan. Hamas has been classified as an extremist organization. That means that using its slogans and symbols is illegal under the same laws that make Nazi slogans and symbols illegal. That’s the hate speech and illegal content that online platforms are supposed to remove.
Failing to crack down on hate speech is one of the biggest complaints against X. If you demand that authorities to enforce EU platform laws harder, then what happens is that this slogan is suppressed harder. You understand?