5 ms·

It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to create, own, distribute or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their

by beAbU 9mo ago

It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to create, own, distribute or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their consent, regardless if they are underage or not. Grok is a platform that is enabling this en masse. If xAI can't bring in guardrails or limit who can access these capabilities, then they deserve what's coming to them.

actionfromafar 9mo ago
I think you are going a bit too far. Let's start from the beginning, create and own: You're sketching out some nude fanart on a piece of paper. You created that and own that. Thas has always been illegal?! (This is apart from my feelings on Mechahitler/Grok, which aren't positive.)
- reddalo 9mo ago
  You can _almost_ do anything you want in the privacy of your home; but in this case Twitter was actively and directly disseminating pictures publicly on their platform.
  - kimixa 9mo ago
    And profiting from it, though less directly than "$ for illegal images". Even if it wasn't behind a paywall (which it mostly is) driving more traffic for more ads for more income is still profiting from illegal imagery.
- andrepd 9mo ago
  > You're sketching out some nude fanart on a piece of paper. Is twitter a piece of paper in your desk? No, it's not.
  - actionfromafar 9mo ago
    Right. OP had "It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to create, own, distribute or store " It would make more sense then to instead say: "It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to distribute "
    - andrepd 9mo ago
      Again, AI deepfakes are not sketches in a piece of paper. There's a massive difference between drawing your coworker naked on a piece of paper (weird, but certainly not criminal), and going "grok generate a video of my coworker bouncing on my d*ck". Not to mention the latter is generated and stored god knows where, against the consent of the depicted person.
master-lincoln 9mo ago
In which broken society do you live where this is true? I would say drawing sexually explicit pictures of real persons without their consent and keeping them in your drawer is neither illegal nor morally reprehensible in most of the world. I am with you on publishing these...
- freetanga 9mo ago
  Not morally reprehensible? Do you tell your coworkers “hey, last night I sketched you nude, but it’s cool, it’s in my bedside drawer…”
  - mothballed 9mo ago
    I've had a coworker tell me something very close to that before. I could have been morally outraged but instead I just propositioned them for a date. Personally I think it's just embarrassing, not immoral.
  - master-lincoln 9mo ago
    I would personally not tell them because not everyone likes to know what/that others think about them. But I do not see the moral issue if I don't tell them. What if I only thought about it? Still morally reprehensible? Or only if I tell others I think about them? Then you could argue it's sexual harassment.
- Cthulhu_ 9mo ago
  I don't think one internet commenter can know or decide what is or isn't "morally reprehensible" in "most of the world". I don't speak for "most of the world" but I'm fairly sure "I drew nudes of your mom lol" will not go down well anywhere.
  - master-lincoln 9mo ago
    then we are both sure of different things that are hard to check ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
GaryBluto 9mo ago
>It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to create, own, distribute or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their consent, regardless if they are underage or not. Arguably morally reprehensible but it has not always been illegal (and still isn't in many places) if you're talking about images of adults.
- a_better_world 9mo ago
  Did you miss the "without their consent" part?
  - philipwhiuk 9mo ago
    I think Gary is just reaching back to antiquity.
- Cthulhu_ 9mo ago
  "Argually" morally reprehensible? I don't think that's very cash money to be honest. This comment chain isn't about a difference of opinion, but a difference in morality - there's no debating possible about morals I think.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
sandworm101 9mo ago
>> or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their consent Who told you that? Go ask Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton about that one. There are rules about material created without consent, but people do not retain a perpetual right to have formerly consentual material taken down. Hollywood, let alone the porn industry, would collapse overnight if every disgruntled star could have movies removed whenever they feel like it simply by withdrawing "consent" years after creation. And for copyright, generally the person on camera is not holding the camera and so is not the creator/owner of the material. That is a regular issue where people attempt to use the dmca to remove images of themselves from websites.
- BigTTYGothGF 9mo ago
  > Paris Hilton She can't withdraw consent when she never gave it in the first place.
  - sandworm101 9mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Night_in_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Night_in_Paris She claimes, later, to have not consented but given the sophistication of the production no reasonable person could believe she had no idea it was being filmed. She might not consent to the exact public release but she was certainly well aware of being filmed on the day. She consented to the creation. Same issue decades later during the iphone hacks/leaks. They did not consent to public release, but did consent to creation and private distribution, sometimes even taking and initially sharing the photos themselves.

by beAbU 9mo ago

actionfromafar 9mo ago

I think you are going a bit too far. Let's start from the beginning, create and own: You're sketching out some nude fanart on a piece of paper. You created that and own that. Thas has always been illegal?! (This is apart from my feelings on Mechahitler/Grok, which aren't positive.)

reddalo 9mo ago
You can _almost_ do anything you want in the privacy of your home; but in this case Twitter was actively and directly disseminating pictures publicly on their platform.
- kimixa 9mo ago
  And profiting from it, though less directly than "$ for illegal images". Even if it wasn't behind a paywall (which it mostly is) driving more traffic for more ads for more income is still profiting from illegal imagery.
andrepd 9mo ago
> You're sketching out some nude fanart on a piece of paper. Is twitter a piece of paper in your desk? No, it's not.
- actionfromafar 9mo ago
  Right. OP had "It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to create, own, distribute or store " It would make more sense then to instead say: "It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to distribute "
  - andrepd 9mo ago
    Again, AI deepfakes are not sketches in a piece of paper. There's a massive difference between drawing your coworker naked on a piece of paper (weird, but certainly not criminal), and going "grok generate a video of my coworker bouncing on my d*ck". Not to mention the latter is generated and stored god knows where, against the consent of the depicted person.

master-lincoln 9mo ago

In which broken society do you live where this is true? I would say drawing sexually explicit pictures of real persons without their consent and keeping them in your drawer is neither illegal nor morally reprehensible in most of the world. I am with you on publishing these...

freetanga 9mo ago
Not morally reprehensible? Do you tell your coworkers “hey, last night I sketched you nude, but it’s cool, it’s in my bedside drawer…”
- mothballed 9mo ago
  I've had a coworker tell me something very close to that before. I could have been morally outraged but instead I just propositioned them for a date. Personally I think it's just embarrassing, not immoral.
- master-lincoln 9mo ago
  I would personally not tell them because not everyone likes to know what/that others think about them. But I do not see the moral issue if I don't tell them. What if I only thought about it? Still morally reprehensible? Or only if I tell others I think about them? Then you could argue it's sexual harassment.
Cthulhu_ 9mo ago
I don't think one internet commenter can know or decide what is or isn't "morally reprehensible" in "most of the world". I don't speak for "most of the world" but I'm fairly sure "I drew nudes of your mom lol" will not go down well anywhere.
- master-lincoln 9mo ago
  then we are both sure of different things that are hard to check ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

GaryBluto 9mo ago

>It has always been illegal and morally reprehensible to create, own, distribute or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their consent, regardless if they are underage or not. Arguably morally reprehensible but it has not always been illegal (and still isn't in many places) if you're talking about images of adults.

a_better_world 9mo ago
Did you miss the "without their consent" part?
- philipwhiuk 9mo ago
  I think Gary is just reaching back to antiquity.
Cthulhu_ 9mo ago
"Argually" morally reprehensible? I don't think that's very cash money to be honest. This comment chain isn't about a difference of opinion, but a difference in morality - there's no debating possible about morals I think.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]

sandworm101 9mo ago

>> or store sexually explicit material that represents a real person without their consent Who told you that? Go ask Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton about that one. There are rules about material created without consent, but people do not retain a perpetual right to have formerly consentual material taken down. Hollywood, let alone the porn industry, would collapse overnight if every disgruntled star could have movies removed whenever they feel like it simply by withdrawing "consent" years after creation. And for copyright, generally the person on camera is not holding the camera and so is not the creator/owner of the material. That is a regular issue where people attempt to use the dmca to remove images of themselves from websites.

BigTTYGothGF 9mo ago
> Paris Hilton She can't withdraw consent when she never gave it in the first place.
- sandworm101 9mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Night_in_Paris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Night_in_Paris She claimes, later, to have not consented but given the sophistication of the production no reasonable person could believe she had no idea it was being filmed. She might not consent to the exact public release but she was certainly well aware of being filmed on the day. She consented to the creation. Same issue decades later during the iphone hacks/leaks. They did not consent to public release, but did consent to creation and private distribution, sometimes even taking and initially sharing the photos themselves.