Gross.
Sometime make it do this to Trump so that we can summon a lawsuit ouroboros
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.
That’s satire though.
Under any reasonable court (big caveat for American courts right now) that’s free speech.
And under any court at all, so is this. That’s the problem.
how can an ai bot pull a free speech defense? free speech is, ostensibly, reserved for people…?
Are you under the impression that the AI bot was not created by people?
So? The manufacturer of the product is not responsible for how people use the product. Otherwise there would be no gun manufacturers anymore.
They are, however, responsible if the product they created does illegal things.
I disagree here, but I’m not a lawyer
Based on what? Who have you seen be convicted of making deepfake porn? Under what law?
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.
Is providing it over a private channel to a singular user publication?
I suspect that you will have to directly regulate image generation
Hmm, interesting, thanks. Has anyone been charged or convicted with this law yet?
I disagree that Grok appears as any form of satire here
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.
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
Well no, that was a practical effect.
Only it was mostly real
Not anymore real than these photos from Grok.
Taylor swift nude gross, but trump nude good? You have rare taste it seems.
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.
I mean, all the AI deepfake nudes are gross, but I’m interested in the chaos and two awful people getting in a fight.
deep fake of a deep fake president? what’s the point?
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…
You really don’t think there’s a ‘freedom’ version being mailed to the Epstein mailing list?
😬
Reminder that Elon Musk told people on Reddit, that he will set the Age of Consent to 14 on Mars, if not lower.
Isn’t that a bit too high? 14 Mars years are about 28 Earth years.
…
Not that I think Elon knows that.
There’s definitely models that have no problem with that yeah
https://archive.is/QTpGe because its either pay walled or needs an account
The real hero
Musk offered to father her children. This was probably done deliberately.
The difference between impregnating and being the father figure. He’s such a piece of shit.
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. 🤌
Grok has guardrails, it’s just they’re there for different reasons.
Oh it’s refined donkey shit alright, it has guardrails just like any commercial LLM.
@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).
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.
Public opinion is what you were looking for there.
Yeah, my brain had stopped working. Thanks for the help.
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”?
Many jurisdictions have started banning nonconsensual intimate imagery, including the US (in several states as well as federally under the TAKE IT DOWN Act).
That seems recently signed into law (ie, untested in courts) & patently unconstitutional. Would that law prohibit obscene depictions of Trump?
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.
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?
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.
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.
That’s already happening
So everyone is naked and without job. What would be next AI revelation ?
“… for science” - reporter
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.
That picture is uncanny.
How is AI not buried under piles of lawsuits?
Because its not a legal entity. And when it becomes one… well lets just hope it never becomes one.
I wonder if grok could make some distasteful Elon deepfakes.
Removed by mod
Grok will walk you through how to bypass a FRP on a phone. i.e. you stole a phone and need to bypass the Factory Reset Protection. ask other LLM’s this and they’ll out right refuse.
Removed by mod
illegal things too
Such as? Violating which laws?
At what point do these artists (read labels) start suing for defamation (read loss of profits).
Hell yeah. That’s awesome. Grok is just Tay AI. Finally returned to us, as the prophecy foretold.
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.
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.
With a white supremacist at its helm
