AI fails again

I get where you're coming from. But, when I see an article that references some degenerate practice and see that India stepped up, I see an article written for India and it's image, not the problem it nominally addresses.  
  
Among the things I haven't tried but am entirely certain of is that if I attempted to get the same result they're claiming Grok generated at the same moment in time that it would not do it.  
  
Exploitation claims are the best ones to make without evidence of what was actually done because they can hide behind the excuse that they of course can't show you the product they're claiming because that would be unseemly.  
  
My guess is that if I could see the product it would be less egregious than thousands upon thousands of videos on YouTube right now, not of AI generated not-persons or simulations of actual persons wearing skimpy clothes.  
  
The likelihood that this was discovered by some sleuth doggedly pursuing wrongdoers rather than performing a hit job on Musk while also padding India's image is essentially nill.  
  
According to the people who are actually pursuing people actively working to locate and expose pedos it's extremely easy to find CP adjacent content. Tracking down the individuals can be quite daunting, but they do it and sometimes find themselves harassed by law enforcement for doing so.  
  
This story is intended to trigger our outrage, but it only works because we're not aware of the level of degeneracy we're dealing with.  
  
Making an AI model produce content it's not intended to produce requires either fantastically lucky coincidence or a deep knowledge of how they work.  
  
What you're seeing is standard "journalism" practiced according to the British model for more than a century. They set up the event or simply make it up, then do the right up to bolster the narrative of the good guy VS the bad guy.  
  
In this case the people hacking Grok to produce something potentially egregious are most likely Indian tech specialists working for the Indian government, and very likely fired Twitter employees.  
  
Can I guarantee that? Of course not.  
  
But, it's a hell of a lot more likely than that some perv was unable to find pictures of real kids and resorted to using Grok to produce them.  
  
I'd also say it's extremely unlikely if you saw the images (if they ever existed), they wouldn't even raise an eyebrow for you.  
  
Stacey Dash played a 16 year old in Clueless when she was 28, and she was smoking hot. Prudes scolded me for enjoying her sexy beauty because she was two years younger than myself? No, because she portrayed someone much younger than she was.  
  
This obsession with age has not been constant in our culture, and it appeared as suddenly and as completely as the mask obsession during covid.  
  
When I was in high school there was a minor "scandal" involving one of my teachers who married one of his former students. Obviously the romance began when she was his student and 17 or younger. But, it really wasn't a big deal. Some of the old biddies would cluck about it while everyone else rolled their eyes.  
  
Brooke Shields posed nude in a major publication when she was 10 years old. This wasn't some seedy backroom publication on mimeograph copies sold by a weird guy on the street corner. It was playboy's premium "art" magazine and the photographer was a renowned portrait photographer. That would have been 1975. Shields is almost the same age as me.  
  
A couple years later she stared in a film "Pretty Baby" about a girl growing up in a brothel.  
  
I'm not defending this, but I am pointing out that it wasn't unusual enough at the time to warrant national, let alone international outrage. But, then, sharp as a knife cut, the change happened, and overnight it went from that standard to huffing and puffing about Brooke Shields Calvin Klein Jeans ad (sound just a little bit familiar?) when she was 15 because she implied she didn't wear underwear under her jeans. That was 1980.  
  
People at the time blamed the shift on the "Moral Majority", but in my opinion they simply cashed in on a sentiment that already existed and amplified it's voice.  
  
By the time I was six my father had already thrown out our television because it showed things he thought weren't fit to watch. Brady Bunch premiered in 69. I never saw it. Never saw Star Trek at home. Dad was actually offended by "Bedknobs and Broomsticks".  
  
So, the counter-counter-culture was already steaming along before the change I'm describing happened.  
  
What never changed from the day I became able to process adult conversations to this very day was the abject dishonesty of moral outrage.  
  
Let's examine some 'age of consent' laws. In 1850, 175 years ago the age of consent in California was set according to law at 10 years for girls younger than their male counterparts.  
  
Here's a [Smithsonian article](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-raising-age-sexual-consent-taught-women-about-vote-180975658/) about age of consent laws to chew on so you can see I'm not just making this stuff up. In 1890 the age of consent in 38 different states was 12, which is the lower limit alleged in the article you provided. In Delaware the age of consent was... seven years old.  
  
This modern pearl clutching, "Oh how far society has fallen!" is pure unadulterated bunk. One to two centuries ago when Christianity was at it's strongest in Western nations, you could be jailed for pornography, sure enough. But thinking pubescent girls could be sexually active/attractive? No. It wasn't a thing.  
  
And yes, I'm going there, Muhamad taking Alisa as a wife didn't raise a damn eyebrow until just the last thirty/forty years.  
  
Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl, and what that should tell you is not that Mormons were all degenerates, but that it wasn't particularly noteworthy or off-putting at the time.  
  
My mother was married at 16 to a veteran and stayed married till her death. He married her and continued that till his death a couple years later.  
  
We live in a psychotic society which recognizes that people will begin having sex at twelve or younger, openly advocate for free abortions for these girls and be shocked, shocked I say, that anyone finds them attractive.  
  
I was sexually aware at twelve and I know for damn sure at least half the girls around me were as well. By the time most of them turned 16 MOST of them were hunting men into their late twenties or even early thirties, though back then, most of those men were married by then.  
  
And this absurd notion that it's only men lusting after girls is also complete bunk. I'll never forget being able to see the substitute teachers panties with the view she gave me down her braless dress.  
  
So, can we just get past the rampant dishonesty of being outraged about every single teeny tiny deviation from the accepted norm while children are actually being trafficked around the world? Could we maybe clean up that problem just a little bit before we begin screeching about Grok making a simulated image of a girl in a bikini that was probably nothing more than a hit-piece in the first place?

7 bumps

seraphima · 1/5/2026, 10:56:39 PM · permalink

5 bumps

S

saarnok · 1/6/2026, 12:25:53 AM · permalink

3 bumps

R

rusalka · 1/3/2026, 8:37:55 PM · permalink

31 bumps