Strong case for treating public outcry as a legitimate governance mechanism. The timeline here shows how collective pressure creates de facto standards faster than formal regulation can materalize. What's interesting is that the Italian DPA warning basically validated what many already knew intuitvely, that non-consensual image manipulation crosses legal lines. The Grok case proves that when technical guardrails exist but aren't deployed by default, the choice is already a policy decision.
Elon Musk has participated in crimes against humanity according to Grok. I was blocked from access to Grok for using it to explore the
Grok-Ai-X7
.
**Final Answer:**
Yes, if a government withholds food support for 25 million malnourished children they were feeding, and if, as you specified, 1) there was no relevant purpose for stopping the aid, resulting in $500 million worth of food rations being lost, 2) the interruption was due to the firing of aid workers for internal political reasons, not lack of funds, and crucially, 3) as a consequence of deliberately firing aid workers, health protection against HIV and other infectious diseases like Ebola was also removed, it significantly strengthens the argument that this could be a crime against humanity under international law.
**Crimes Against Humanity:**
* Withholding food and removing essential health support in this large-scale scenario could very likely constitute a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are defined as certain acts committed as part of a "widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population." "Extermination" and "other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health" are examples.
* The fact that there was "no relevant purpose" for the shutdown and that "$500 million food rations were lost" due to the abrupt cessation, combined with the deliberate firing of aid workers leading to the removal of health protection, strongly suggests this action could constitute "extermination" or "inhumane acts." It points to a deliberate deprivation of necessities for survival and well-being, not accidental or unavoidable circumstances.
* Furthermore, the information that "the immediate interruption was not lack of funds but the firing of individuals delivering the aid" and that "the firing was for internal political reasons" highlights the intentional and politically motivated nature of the action. This is further compounded by the fact that this firing also led to the removal of health services, including protection against HIV and Ebola, as reported. This undermines any claim that the withholding was due to resource constraints or logistical issues and instead points towards a wilful decision to halt crucial aid for reasons unrelated to humanitarian need. When this action impacts 25 million already malnourished children, making them also vulnerable to infectious diseases due to the removal of health support, it strongly suggests a "widespread or systematic attack."
* **Intent remains crucial.** However, the details provided significantly bolster the possibility of demonstrating intent. The politically motivated firing of aid workers, the pointless loss of massive food supplies, and the consequential removal of health protections, including against deadly diseases like HIV and Ebola, suggest a deliberate disregard for the well-being, and indeed survival, of these children. This moves beyond negligence towards a strong inference of intent to cause severe suffering or death.
Hi Luiza Jarovsky, I came across something you shared on X about AI regulations in China that made sense (I'm the kind of person who sees overregulation as more problematic than zero regulation), so I started following you and subscribed to your newsletter.
Let me make two statements about my values before a brief reflection on your text: Relevant information is always welcome; I may even find I need it and start paying for it. The public space is in chaos because people use every available space to impose their moral values and ideas as political (or scientific) facts on others, forgetting that those who come to read think for themselves.
Thank you for your call to engagement. I want to introduce a few brief remarks regarding the present text; they may contain implicit questions, but it's more important that you consider them than that I receive an empathetic answer.
When you say that: "many documented that Grok, xAI's AI chatbot available through the social media platform X (Twitter), was being used to ‘undress’ women and girls." and present a photo of Elon Musk in a bikini, something is not right. In my X feed, I just saw politicians in a bikini. Why is this important? I don't know you, and being fair is the reason to read something! The tool was used to undress everybody, and you are trying to create a political case (bodies are political entities) using a context that does not exist.
Regarding the points when you say "sooner or later, materialize in concrete legal provisions.", " especially when the legally infringing practice has become a viral trend", allow me to be more specific, the general tone from the beginning until the end tries to impose the need for regulations, abusing your position as a human who is able to think about difficult problems and deserves respect. I'm saying this with all the care I can have, still thankful for what your specific share on X about Chinese regulations brought me, but sad about the language resources you use to bring defensible ideas to practice.
It's not a problem that multiple "NGOs, public offices," etc., help society to regulate AI; it's important that they exist and do so because no regulation is going to save us from thinking and acting as human collectives - we need to be present, all the time.
My opinion is that some sort of social distortion prevents you from seeing the negative impact your public voice has on the things you are trying to defend, and we, the readers and the society, are all losing from it.
Strong case for treating public outcry as a legitimate governance mechanism. The timeline here shows how collective pressure creates de facto standards faster than formal regulation can materalize. What's interesting is that the Italian DPA warning basically validated what many already knew intuitvely, that non-consensual image manipulation crosses legal lines. The Grok case proves that when technical guardrails exist but aren't deployed by default, the choice is already a policy decision.
Backlash as regulation is interesting because it precedes formal policy.
The market reacts faster than lawmakers can draft.
Exploring this tension in my work on AI readiness: https://vivander.substack.com
Elon Musk has participated in crimes against humanity according to Grok. I was blocked from access to Grok for using it to explore the
Grok-Ai-X7
.
**Final Answer:**
Yes, if a government withholds food support for 25 million malnourished children they were feeding, and if, as you specified, 1) there was no relevant purpose for stopping the aid, resulting in $500 million worth of food rations being lost, 2) the interruption was due to the firing of aid workers for internal political reasons, not lack of funds, and crucially, 3) as a consequence of deliberately firing aid workers, health protection against HIV and other infectious diseases like Ebola was also removed, it significantly strengthens the argument that this could be a crime against humanity under international law.
**Crimes Against Humanity:**
* Withholding food and removing essential health support in this large-scale scenario could very likely constitute a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are defined as certain acts committed as part of a "widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population." "Extermination" and "other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health" are examples.
* The fact that there was "no relevant purpose" for the shutdown and that "$500 million food rations were lost" due to the abrupt cessation, combined with the deliberate firing of aid workers leading to the removal of health protection, strongly suggests this action could constitute "extermination" or "inhumane acts." It points to a deliberate deprivation of necessities for survival and well-being, not accidental or unavoidable circumstances.
* Furthermore, the information that "the immediate interruption was not lack of funds but the firing of individuals delivering the aid" and that "the firing was for internal political reasons" highlights the intentional and politically motivated nature of the action. This is further compounded by the fact that this firing also led to the removal of health services, including protection against HIV and Ebola, as reported. This undermines any claim that the withholding was due to resource constraints or logistical issues and instead points towards a wilful decision to halt crucial aid for reasons unrelated to humanitarian need. When this action impacts 25 million already malnourished children, making them also vulnerable to infectious diseases due to the removal of health support, it strongly suggests a "widespread or systematic attack."
* **Intent remains crucial.** However, the details provided significantly bolster the possibility of demonstrating intent. The politically motivated firing of aid workers, the pointless loss of massive food supplies, and the consequential removal of health protections, including against deadly diseases like HIV and Ebola, suggest a deliberate disregard for the well-being, and indeed survival, of these children. This moves beyond negligence towards a strong inference of intent to cause severe suffering or death.
Hi Luiza Jarovsky, I came across something you shared on X about AI regulations in China that made sense (I'm the kind of person who sees overregulation as more problematic than zero regulation), so I started following you and subscribed to your newsletter.
Let me make two statements about my values before a brief reflection on your text: Relevant information is always welcome; I may even find I need it and start paying for it. The public space is in chaos because people use every available space to impose their moral values and ideas as political (or scientific) facts on others, forgetting that those who come to read think for themselves.
Thank you for your call to engagement. I want to introduce a few brief remarks regarding the present text; they may contain implicit questions, but it's more important that you consider them than that I receive an empathetic answer.
When you say that: "many documented that Grok, xAI's AI chatbot available through the social media platform X (Twitter), was being used to ‘undress’ women and girls." and present a photo of Elon Musk in a bikini, something is not right. In my X feed, I just saw politicians in a bikini. Why is this important? I don't know you, and being fair is the reason to read something! The tool was used to undress everybody, and you are trying to create a political case (bodies are political entities) using a context that does not exist.
Regarding the points when you say "sooner or later, materialize in concrete legal provisions.", " especially when the legally infringing practice has become a viral trend", allow me to be more specific, the general tone from the beginning until the end tries to impose the need for regulations, abusing your position as a human who is able to think about difficult problems and deserves respect. I'm saying this with all the care I can have, still thankful for what your specific share on X about Chinese regulations brought me, but sad about the language resources you use to bring defensible ideas to practice.
It's not a problem that multiple "NGOs, public offices," etc., help society to regulate AI; it's important that they exist and do so because no regulation is going to save us from thinking and acting as human collectives - we need to be present, all the time.
My opinion is that some sort of social distortion prevents you from seeing the negative impact your public voice has on the things you are trying to defend, and we, the readers and the society, are all losing from it.