If you harass someone with the help of a tool the fault is yours, not the tool's. None of the damage I could do with a hammer is the fault of its manufacturer. Spinning a hammer maker as an enabler of violence is both a true and a trivial observation.
A better analogy would be "remotely swing a hammer as a service". You can't build something like that and act shocked when a significant fraction of your users use it to harm people instead of driving nails, and you certainly shoulder a large fraction of the responsibility.
It is both common and uncontroversial to put restrictions on using certain tools in certain situations for safety reasons, especially in public and crowded places: you can't bring a hammer to a concert.
As the provider of a public place, X ought to take certain measures to ensure public safety on its premises. Of course, deciding what is and in not tolerable is the crux of the issue, and is far from trivial.
Great. So we can subpoena twitter for the information about everybody who used Grok to create this monstrous content so they can be rounded up?
I'm personally fucking sick of sexual abuse being treated just like something that every woman in society just needs to deal with. "Oh, we put the revenge porn machine right in front of everybody and made a big red button for you to push" is horrible. But at least we should be screaming from the rooftops about every hideous person using this machine. Every single one of their friends should leave them.
This is damage-as-a-service, free of charge and as anonymous as your account, plus automatic distribution of the results to the victim and for all to see.
I dunno, I think a significant amount of fault lies with the developers who were either too stupid and too bad at software to create a tool that couldn’t create CSAM, or were too vile to enable the restriction.
I also think people who defend that kind of software are in dire need of significant introspection.
Rubbish. That analogy is like comparing a gun manufacturer to a hitman service.
Elon Musk is willingly allowing Grok to be used to harass women (and children). He could easily put in safeguards to prevent that, but instead he chooses to promote it as if its a good thing.
Practically no one defends websites that host AIs to remove clothing from photos of women, or put them in bikinis. The few people who do defend them are usually creeps who need their hard drive searched. Same goes for anyone defending this
I'm interested in the claim that "OpenAI and Gemini have popular image models that do not let you do this kind of thing.". Is that actually true? Or do they just kinda try and it's possible to get around easily? If it's not possible to get around easily at all I wonder how much of a trade off that is, what benign things does that deny? Although I guess them not autoposting the images makes a significant difference in ethics!
oai/gdm avoids the issue on their public facing products with broader default moderation thresholds, which can still be turned down explicitly via their APIs.
xai's only failure was to implement this modicum of damage control against social exposure
sharing explicit images of anyone without their consent is illegal under UK law.
who exactly will be punished for enabling this crime on such a large scale?
There is upcoming legislation planned for this. It will (hopefully) make the tool creators criminally liable. That’s the plan anyway. I am sure it’ll be watered down massively.
i can see them with my own eyes. how are they not real? do you mean that they are fake? if i photoshopped an image of your face onto a similar looking (nude) model, would that also be a "fake" image? what if i shared it to your friends and family, and claimed that it was a picture of you? would the emotional impact to. you not be "real"?
Anyone still using Twitter? Even before the AI rage, I stopped looking at it - in part because of a certain crazy techbro, but also because of the forced log-in-to-read. I am never going to log in there again, so this is now a walled-off garden to me.
This comment is harmfully lazy. Is your position that a three word prompt is equivalent to armchair trolls goi g through the funnel - finding a way to obtain DRM-controlled software, learning that software to sufficient levels to understand the tools required of how to perform something akin to a deep fake, and then somehow gaining the art talent and experience required to put it into practice? Did I just get baited?
The answer is that it's not okay and never was. Do you really think you're pulling a gotcha here?
Photoshopping nudes of your coworkers was always seen poorly and would get you fired if the right people heard about it. It's just that most people don't have the skill to do it so it never became a common enough issue for the zeitgeist to care.
I am not trying to pull a gotcha and I made no claim that it is okay or not okay. Don't suggest otherwise. I also wasn't talking about coworkers or any other particular group.
My argument is that it is either okay or not, regardless of the tools used.
Creating CSAM or non-consensual sexually explicit images of others in photoshop is immoral. If you can’t see that then you need to take an ethics course.
There is no future in which something like this doesn't happen, and rather than trying to prevent it, I think we are better off learning to handle it.
Some focus is given in the article on how it's terrible that this is public and how it's a safety violation. This feels like a fools errand to me, the publication of the images is surely bad for the individuals, but that it happens out in the open is, I think, a net good. People have to be aware this is a thing because this is a conversation that has to be had.
Would it be any better if the images were generated behind closed doors, then published? I think not.
Maybe this will be benefitial to stop the overexposure of some young people on the internet. A bad thing that brings a good result, like the inverse of "the path to hell is paved with good intentions".
On the 90s we internet users tended to hide behind nicknames and posting photos of yourself was not the normal. Maybe we were more nerdy/introverted or scared about what could happen if people recognized us in the real life.
Then services like Facebook, MySpace, Fotolog attracted normal users and here we are now, the more you expose yourself on the net, the better.
Outrage as X's Grok morphs photos of women, children into explicit content
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46460880
reply