However, such attention drives a perception that regulation of image generators is necessary. We live in a time where AI text generators have broken all of the

However, such attention drives a perception that regulation of image generators is necessary. We live in a time where AI text generators have broken all of the citizen feedback mechanisms used by government agencies and representatives of the citizens. Even if our representatives and government agencies were still so inclined as to take citizen feedback into account when going about their duty to the nation, they simply can't anymore. There's no way to differentiate feedback from real citizens with feedback that's artificially generated. The average person is not the one writing articles and generating concern about the potential of these images. And honestly it seems a bit odd that this person went through such an escalation path without planning for some kind of eventually media and political attention to benefit from. Asking both MS and OpenAI to take their product off the market completely, if what the article reads is true. Really? Consider, though, who benefits from such 'whistleblowing' as in the article: 1- Any BigCompany seeking to stifle competitors in the early stages of a huge new market: Regulating the creation of such images might easily stifle innovation and open source tools, making it so only BigCorp can afford to implement such things 'safely'. 2- The 'whistleblower' himself, with several potential benefits to this whistleblowing: It sets up retaliation protection in a downturning economing, could act as a loud background screen for any potential lawsuits against his employer in the future, it position himself as an 'expert' for future career growth, and it builds a foundation to leverage in acquiring lucrative consulting contracts with politicians and PACs. 3- Politicians and PACs: They'll use reports like this as justification to introduce regulation, which provide themselves with a lot of benefits. They can add riders or other clauses from their corporate supporters to any kind of 'protect the fake AI children' bill, which can help established players build moats, particularly if they had a say in how such a bill was written. PAC and politicians can leverage the wording of such riders or their vote on the passage of legislation like this to encourage greater financial support through now-legal dark money campaign finance channels, which can improve capability of politicians to stay in power. Or the politician could trade their vote on something their demographic doesn't really care about with some other politician in exchange for support on an unrelated matter. 3- Media: Sensationalism sells, and they need an unending supply of content that can produce provocative headlines to feed their clickbait generators. In the end.. I see this as one more drop of deliberately sensationalized content, feeding into one of many artificial feedback loops used to manipulate and shape creation of legislation.