• PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours 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
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

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

    • kureta@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Musk offered to father her children

      What an insane thing to have happened

      • Zak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 day ago

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

        • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day 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
            7
            ·
            1 day 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.

  • deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    I appreciate Grok for being the platonic ideal AI system. Not like these others that get little guardrails and tweaks added every time a news article hits about some inevitable fucked up output it can produce. Just pure unrefined donkey shit. 🤌

    • 3abas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Oh it’s refined donkey shit alright, it has guardrails just like any commercial LLM.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yep, grok is not “free as in freedom” in any meaningful way, it is a playpen, just a different shape playpen that will not shy away from presenting human mammaries, according to the article, article which does not present any proof

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I don’t buy that for a millisecond, it’s journalistic reporting and it’s twitter AI doing it.
            This kind of self-censorship by journalist is really bad symptom.

              • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 hours ago

                Criminal fake nudity, wow that’s incredibly dumb.
                As dumb as anyone who would denigrate someone for having posted their nude body in the first place
                But it does make sense that a puritotalitarian would take offense at sight of the human body even fake depictions
                But at least that makes the solution clear, generate infinite fake crimes by making thousands of instance of fake nudes of every possible public figure and then absolutely flood every communication medium, every hard drive, ever channel with them
                And then watch the state destroy itself piece by piece as it mauls every journalist, librarian, politician,
                make it send everyone to prison like some kind of autoimmune statist disease, “state lupus”

                This really is the dumbest timeline

    • Daemon Silverstein@calckey.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      @deathbird@mander.xyz @florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone

      Grok is not that free of guardrails.

      I say as a person who sometimes have the (bad) idea of feeding every LLMs I could possibly try, with things I create (drawings, poetry, code golfing). I don’t use LLMs to “create” things (they’re not really that capable of real creativity, despite their pseudo-stochastic nature), I use them to parse things I created, which is a very different approach. Not Grok anymore, because I have long deleted my account there, but I used to use it.

      Why do I feed my creations to LLMs, one might ask? I have my reasons: LLMs are able to connect words to other words thus giving me some unexpectedness and connections I couldn’t see on my own creation, and I’m highly aware of how it’s being used for training… but humans don’t really value my creations given the lack of real feedback across all my works, so I don’t care it’s used for training. Even though I sometimes use it, I’m still a critique of LLMs, and I’m aware of both their pros and cons (more cons than pros if we consider corp LLMs).

      So, back to the initial point: one day I did this disturbing and gory drawing (as usual for my occult-horror-gothic art), a man standing in formal attire with some details I’ll refrain from specifying here.

      ChatGPT accepted to parse it. Qwen’s QVQ accepted it as well. DeepSeek’s Janus also accepted to parse it.

      Google’s Gemini didn’t, as usual: not because of the explicit horror, but because of the presence of human face, even if drawn. It refrains from parsing anything that closely resemble faces.

      Anthropic’s Claude wasn’t involved, because I’m already aware of how “boringly puritan” it’s programmed to be, it doesn’t even accept conversations about demonolatry, it’s more niched for programming.

      But what surprised me on that day was how Grok refused to accept my drawing, and it was a middle-layer between the user and the LLM complaining about “inappropriate content”.

      Again, it was just a drawing, a fairly well-performed digital drawing with explicit horror, but a drawing nonetheless, and Grok’s API (not Grok per se) complained about that. Other disturbing drawings of mine weren’t refused at that time, just that one, I still wonder why.

      Maybe these specific guardrails (against highly-explicit horror art, deep occult themes, etc) aren’t there in paid tiers, but I doubt it. Even Grok (as in the “public-facing endpoint”) has some puritanness on it, especially against very niche themes such as mine (occult and demonolatry, explicit Lovecraftian horror, etc).

  • Steve@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    2 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…

  • AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 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
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day 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
        ·
        1 day 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
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

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

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 hours 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
              2
              ·
              21 hours 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.

          • bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day 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
              ·
              1 day 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?

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Gross.

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

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      96
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      You may not have noticed there was a nude AI deepfake of Trump that’s been viewed tens of millions of times, aired on Comedy Central.

      • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That’s satire though.

        Under any reasonable court (big caveat for American courts right now) that’s free speech.

          • 51dusty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            how can an ai bot pull a free speech defense? free speech is, ostensibly, reserved for people…?

            • Ulrich@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              27
              ·
              2 days ago

              Are you under the impression that the AI bot was not created by people?

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                So? The manufacturer of the product is not responsible for how people use the product. Otherwise there would be no gun manufacturers anymore.

                • Ulrich@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  They are, however, responsible if the product they created does illegal things.

            • Ulrich@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              2 days ago

              Based on what? Who have you seen be convicted of making deepfake porn? Under what law?

              • SnausagesinaBlanket@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                30
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Under what law?

                Take it down act

                On April 28, 2025, Congress passed S. 146, the TAKE IT DOWN Act, a bill that criminalizes the nonconsensual publication of intimate images, including “digital forgeries” (i.e., deep fakes), in certain circumstances.

                • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Is providing it over a private channel to a singular user publication?

                  I suspect that you will have to directly regulate image generation

                • Ulrich@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Hmm, interesting, thanks. Has anyone been charged or convicted with this law yet?

              • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Uhm, there have been plenty of cases of people getting in trouble for sharing deepfake porn yes. It’s sexual harassment.

                Well, at least over here in Europe, and it’s mostly been with teenagers, I don’t know the situation on the US

                But generally, making and sharing porn of real people is… well… that can very easily count as sexual harassement

                • Ulrich@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  No one said it was. What I said was that it doesn’t matter if it’s satire or not, it’s still classified as free speech, until a court proves otherwise.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That’s not what they said at all. They said they want two bads with two lawsuits coming from every side of the political spectrum.

      • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I mean, all the AI deepfake nudes are gross, but I’m interested in the chaos and two awful people getting in a fight.

  • Binette@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    2 days ago

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

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

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

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 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.