all 82 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 94 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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…

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 72 points 1 year ago (17 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Imagine living your life based on potential meme.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -87 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You sound like the sort of person who's made a Facebook post along the lines of "If you can't handle me at my worst..."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -31 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Don't get mad at me because you've decided to be angry about something that isn't happening. How many women do you know who have 10 kids, how many men do you know would want to have 10 kids? That is no one's fantasy.

    If you want to make being the victim your whole identity that's fine but the rest of the world doesn't need to hear about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This user is a pedophile btw ^

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Most obvious case of projection I’ve ever seen. I’ve sent your account info to the FBI crimes against children division.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 62 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Musk offered to father her children. This was probably done deliberately.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Musk offered to father her children

    What an insane thing to have happened

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    https://archive.is/QTpGe because its either pay walled or needs an account

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 123 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Gross.

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

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Taylor swift nude gross, but trump nude good? You have rare taste it seems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    I wonder if grok could make some distasteful Elon deepfakes.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago*

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

  • source
  • [–] 51 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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. 🤌

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Presenting proof in this context could result in a lawsuit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "... for science" - reporter

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago
    [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    That picture is uncanny.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How is AI not buried under piles of lawsuits?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

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

  • source
  • [+] -18 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • 4 comments in c/ghazi@lemmy.blahaj.zone view that post
    [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Isn't that illegal now?

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Absolutely nothing at all could be wrong in this, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Ewwwwwww!!!!!

  • source
  • 4 comments in c/technology@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Groki is Elon, this is the proof.

  • source
  • Man the unstable diffusion users must have lost their collective minds

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago
    [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    That's not fair

  • source