• panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    25 days ago

    Gross.

    Sometime make it do this to Trump so that we can summon a lawsuit ouroboros

  • Steve@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    25 days ago

    The image generator will also make photorealistic pictures of children upon request, but thankfully refuses to animate them inappropriately, despite the “spicy” option still being available. You can still select it, but in all my tests, it just added generic movement.

    So it does know theres a line to cross somewhere…

  • Binette@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    25 days ago

    everyday I thank myself for being too shut-in to post pictures of myself online

    • kureta@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      Musk offered to father her children

      What an insane thing to have happened

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        25 days ago

        Yes, but Musk makes inappropriate offers to impregnate women regularly, so this isn’t surprising.

        • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          24 days ago

          Worth noting he has to pay these women lifetime contracts to father his children, many of these women were ex employees at his companies.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            24 days ago

            Cool motive. Still gross.

            Actually, not cool motive. The man is a eugenics supporter and is trying to fill the world with his genes.

  • AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    Swift could easily get a lawsuit set up against them and most likely win, if AI nudes start getting made and sent out by average people. If she did, she’s already won the court of public perception or whatever it’s called ( drawing a blank ) because of how popular she is. I guarantee if she told people not to use grok or ex-twitter, a large of the swifties on the platform would run faster than Usain Bolt to delete their accounts.

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      Swift could easily get a lawsuit set up against them and most likely win

      How would that work? If someone drew a photorealistic painting of pretty much the same, under what legal claim could Swift “most likely win”?

      • bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        24 days ago

        Many jurisdictions have started banning nonconsensual intimate imagery, including the US (in several states as well as federally under the TAKE IT DOWN Act).

        • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          24 days ago

          That seems recently signed into law (ie, untested in courts) & patently unconstitutional. Would that law prohibit obscene depictions of Trump?

          • bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            24 days ago

            Well, the constitutionality will need to be tested, sure, but the US first amendment is not absolute, even if it is sweeping relative to other countries.

            Also, the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world. Plenty of other countries have put similar laws on the books over the last 2-3 years.

            • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              24 days ago

              but the US first amendment is not absolute

              It’s pretty clear: strict scrutiny.

              Also, the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world.

              Would the jurisdiction for a case between a US citizen & US company not be the US?

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            24 days ago

            Maybe. For photographs, it’s definitely not unconstitutional to make it illegal, because people have a right to privacy (4th amendment sort of, and 10th because they’re state laws).

            For Trump, and for non-photographic media, it’s a little different. For one, he’s a very public figure. Another, you could argue it’s artistic, satirical, or critical of him.

            Now if you were doing it maliciously, with intent to harass him personally, then yeah that would probably be considered not protected and carry civil or criminal liability.

            • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              24 days ago

              For one, he’s a very public figure.

              As is Swift.

              maliciously, with intent to harass him personally

              Is that the standard? Wouldn’t an act of harassment (as legally defined) rather than only intent of it be a required element?

              The argument seems weak for a fake image of a public figure.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      25 days ago

      I mean I get what you are saying, but at the same time this does need attempting with every image generation AI and reporting on if successful. If this capability existed but wasn’t general knowledge it calls cause serious issues.

      Better that it’s made public so that the information is in the public consciousness.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    So everyone is naked and without job. What would be next AI revelation ?

    • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 days ago

      Because its not a legal entity. And when it becomes one… well lets just hope it never becomes one.

  • Strakh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 days ago

    At what point do these artists (read labels) start suing for defamation (read loss of profits).

  • Tracaine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    Hell yeah. That’s awesome. Grok is just Tay AI. Finally returned to us, as the prophecy foretold.

    • TheFogan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      25 days ago

      Honestly from my understanding, Tay is pretty badly misrepresented. The headlines basically went as if read twitter posts, and the overwhelming negative content on it lead the algorythm to make it say really horrible stuff.

      But the actuality of it was dumber, the AI side of it to my knowledge never said anything offensive. They gave the damn thing a “Say” command. which basically the trolls learned in 2 seconds and instructed it to repeat racist things.

      • paraphrand@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        Yup. Everything negative it said was intentionally triggered by a troll.

        Now if one were to suggest everything negative Grok has said was also triggered by a troll named Elon Musk, well…

        Jokes aside. They are very different situations and have very different implications for society.