Grok’s ‘spicy’ video setting instantly made me Taylor Swift nude deepfakes
Technology
110
Beiträge
62
Kommentatoren
4
Aufrufe
-
Just block all men from your life and you'll be fine
️ tried and trusted methodAs a man ... yeah.
-
Gross.
Sometime make it do this to Trump so that we can summon a lawsuit ouroboros
-
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.There are federal laws against posting fake nudes they CAN be sued for posting the evidence.
-
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).
-
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? -
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.
-
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?
-
It seems I upset all the chomos on this app LMAO
Most obvious case of projection I’ve ever seen. I’ve sent your account info to the FBI crimes against children division.
-
Most obvious case of projection I’ve ever seen. I’ve sent your account info to the FBI crimes against children division.
Good I'm glad I've always wanted someone to report mt benign existence LOL
-
Good I'm glad I've always wanted someone to report mt benign existence LOL
Not benign. Pathetic and demonic. You should take steps to end it asap.
-
Not benign. Pathetic and demonic. You should take steps to end it asap.
Why are you so mad at someone who is anti Pedro??
-
Is providing it over a private channel to a singular user publication?
I suspect that you will have to directly regulate image generation
I don't think anyone has any delusions that Twitter is private, not even DM's.
-
Yes, but Musk makes inappropriate offers to impregnate women regularly, so this isn't surprising.
Worth noting he has to pay these women lifetime contracts to father his children, many of these women were ex employees at his companies.
-
Worth noting he has to pay these women lifetime contracts to father his children, many of these women were ex employees at his companies.
Cool motive. Still gross.
Actually, not cool motive. The man is a eugenics supporter and is trying to fill the world with his genes.
-
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.
-
you really think I wouldn't have any other reason? just because of this meme?
Sorry I guess I found your comment quite jarring as in "glad I don't have legs for foot fungus" sort of jarring. Either way, hope you super powers to get through it!
-
That seems recently signed into law (ie, untested in courts) & patently unconstitutional.
Would that law prohibit obscene depictions of Trump?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.
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I wonder if grok could make some distasteful Elon deepfakes.
-
This post did not contain any content.
At what point do these artists (read labels) start suing for defamation (read loss of profits).
