4 ms·

Grok breaks France's hate-speech laws all the time but they're only going after it because it can create images of naked people? Musk's propaganda nexus should

by thrance 10mo ago

Grok breaks France's hate-speech laws all the time but they're only going after it because it can create images of naked people? Musk's propaganda nexus should have been banned years ago here, but not for this stupid reason.

johneth 10mo ago
It makes sexual images of real people without their consent. That's what's breaking the law.
- chrisjj 10mo ago
  Is an image of someone wearing only a bikini seriously claimed to be sexual here? Not by this article, for sure. "The service prohibits pornography involving real people’s likenesses and sexual content involving minors, which is illegal to create or distribute. Still, users have prompted Grok to digitally remove clothing from photos — mostly of women — so the subjects appeared to be wearing only underwear or bikinis."
  - archagon 10mo ago
    Try doing that to your coworker and report back on how HR describes it in your offboarding meeting.
    - chrisjj 10mo ago
      The question is about an image not an action.
  - tukarsdev 10mo ago
    Removing people's clothes without their consent is assault, it doesn't matter if, in another setting, where they did consent to it, it would be fine. It obviously is sexual if you look at the intent of people doing it. Not the clothing itself.
    - chrisjj 10mo ago
      > Removing people's clothes without their consent is assault Didn't you know? Grok does not actually remove people's clothes. Instead it pastes from photos of /other people who are already naked/.
      - tukarsdev 10mo ago
        It makes it look realistic with their likeness and body shape though, so it's not merely "pasting" from photos of other people. And quite honestly I find it morally objectionable to have a tool that makes violating consent and bodily autonomy so trivial. Filters exist, they should be used. It's nothing like photoshop. It runs on their servers, using their software, and then is uploaded, by them, onto their website. Yeah I definitely hold X and grok accountable for the harm it causes. It's nothing like offline software.

by thrance 10mo ago

johneth 10mo ago

It makes sexual images of real people without their consent. That's what's breaking the law.

chrisjj 10mo ago
Is an image of someone wearing only a bikini seriously claimed to be sexual here? Not by this article, for sure. "The service prohibits pornography involving real people’s likenesses and sexual content involving minors, which is illegal to create or distribute. Still, users have prompted Grok to digitally remove clothing from photos — mostly of women — so the subjects appeared to be wearing only underwear or bikinis."
- archagon 10mo ago
  Try doing that to your coworker and report back on how HR describes it in your offboarding meeting.
  - chrisjj 10mo ago
    The question is about an image not an action.
- tukarsdev 10mo ago
  Removing people's clothes without their consent is assault, it doesn't matter if, in another setting, where they did consent to it, it would be fine. It obviously is sexual if you look at the intent of people doing it. Not the clothing itself.
  - chrisjj 10mo ago
    > Removing people's clothes without their consent is assault Didn't you know? Grok does not actually remove people's clothes. Instead it pastes from photos of /other people who are already naked/.
    - tukarsdev 10mo ago
      It makes it look realistic with their likeness and body shape though, so it's not merely "pasting" from photos of other people. And quite honestly I find it morally objectionable to have a tool that makes violating consent and bodily autonomy so trivial. Filters exist, they should be used. It's nothing like photoshop. It runs on their servers, using their software, and then is uploaded, by them, onto their website. Yeah I definitely hold X and grok accountable for the harm it causes. It's nothing like offline software.