Comment on X now lets any user AI-edit other users’ images without consent, and there is no opt out
locuester@lemmy.zip 3 days agoUsing grok this way is the same as a photo editor. It’s the human asking grok to do it that is the problem. Not grok or any other tool. Meta products have this exact same feature.
Grok will not post it publicly unless you click the button to do so. Again, it’s the person that is doing it, not grok.
TehPers@beehaw.org 3 days ago
Ok yes you’re right. “Grok generate me some CSAM” is the same as opening up a photo editor and drawing a new real looking body onto someone’s child and putting it in a new body position. Same exact thing. No different at all. Twitter has no responsibility for running a service that can do this.
locuester@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
You’ve totally changed the original post’s topic and made it into something obviously unacceptable. There’s a line to cross with content in general, AI or not, and any public ai model should absolutely have safety rails / content moderation on its output
TehPers@beehaw.org 2 days ago
Surely you have an example where it’s appropriate for a service to generate nonconsensual deepfakes of people then? Because last I checked, that’s what the post’s topic is.
And yes, children are people. And yes, it’s been used that way.
locuester@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
This post isn’t exclusively about deepfakes. It’s about editing someone else’s images. Making suggestive deepfakes is mentioned in the article as an example, but it’s not mentioned in the title or summary here.
That said, my points stand. Don’t post shit online if you don’t want it to be edited.
With the ease of photo manipulation, society has no choice but to adapt to nonsensical, simple edits. It can’t be stopped. There’s hundreds of apps and programs that do this now. Even adobe’s famous suite.
I know you hate Elon, I can hear it in your tone. But this isn’t an Elon thing. Look around.