The black boxes would be impossible, but there are some types of blur that keep enough of the original data they can be undone. There was a pedofile that used a swirl to cover his face in pictures and investigators were able to unswirl the images and identify him.

With how the rest of it has gone it wouldn't surprise me if someone was incompetent enough to use a reversible one, although I have doubts Grok would do it properly.

Edit: this technique only works for video, but maybe if there are several pictures of the same person all blurred it could be used there too?

https://youtu.be/acKYYwcxpGk

They think that the AI is smart enough to deduce from the pixels around it what the original face must have looked like, even though there's actually no reason why there should be a strict causal relationship between those things.

There was someone who reported that due to the incompetence of whitehouse staffers, some of the Epstein files had simply been "redacted" in ms word by highlighting the text black, so people were actually able to remove the redactions by turning the pdf back into word and removing the black highlighting to reveal the text.

Who knows if some of the photos might be the same issue.

The datasets they are trained on do in fact include CSAM. These datasets are so huge that it easily slips through the cracks. It's usually removed whenever it's found, but I don't know how this actually affects the AI models that have already been trained on that data — to my knowledge, it's not possible to selectively "untrain" models, and they would need to be retrained from scratch. Plus I occasionally see it crop up in the news about how new CSAM keeps being found in the training data.

It's one of the many, many problems with generative AI

Can't ask them to sort that out. Are you anti-ai? That's a crime! /s

Easy answer is , they don't

Though that's just the one admitting to it.

A lightly more nuanced answer is , it probably depends, there's likely to be some inference made between age ranges but my guess is that it'd be sub-par given that it sometimes struggles with reproducing images it has a tonne of actual data for.

What crime do you imagine they would be committing?

I don't know what they hope to gain by seeing the kid's face, unless they think they can match it up with an Epstein family member or something (seems unlikely to be their goal).

Didn't they already do that in their public posts or whatever? They don't care.