150
Judge denies xAI effort to halt ban on tech that depicts people nude without permission (minnesotareformer.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Ehh, it seems pretty targeted to me, it's defined to only apply to automatic apps or services, e.g. it specifically exempts manually created images.

Bans X from allowing grok to make naked pictures of celebrities but doesn't apply to people using photoshop to do the same.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Subd. 3. Exemption. The prohibitions in subdivision 2 do not apply when the website, application, software, program, or other service requires the technical skill of a user to nudify an image or video.

    I get the idea, but this doesn't comfort me, because what is "technical skill" here? That seems subjective and will ultimately be up to a court to decide. What constitutes a skill? It's prompting a skill? Is prompting Photoshop's AI a skill? Their lasso tool is pretty easy to use. The line isn't clear, and a clever lawyer, or a judge, or a jury could come down differently on what counts and what doesn't.

    I get the goal here. But I think we were already covered by the existing law that made distribution of these artificial nudes illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    "Prompting" isn't a skill, that's just asking for what you want. Same way as asking a barista for a drink doesn't require the same level of skill as making it.

    But in general yes that's how arguments and decision-making works, for any law. These things aren't mathematical proofs interpreted by computers, they're people you convince of your point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent