this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
386 points (92.0% liked)
Fuck AI
5008 readers
933 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wonder why it was the Sheriff's office that took actions against the boy instead of the school? Because AI nudes are a crime. Not some minor school infraction. JFC. It's jurisdiction if you really need it spelled out. And, the school took action against her for fighting, not because AI nudes were made of her like the title suggests.
"Instigation" and "Incitement" are crimes. It was the boy's unreasonable and criminal acts of harassment against her that drove her to engage in the physical altercation. Those acts constitute "instigation", and make him criminally responsible for the altercation.
Do they have proof of instigation or incitement or criminal acts? No, they have an accusation. Pretty sure you need a warrant to force students to unlock their phones. That's the whole issue and that's why it goes to the sheriff's office to get that proof. They know she started a fight though. Y'all seriously need to understand some basic legal principles.
It was his egregious, deplorable, and criminal acts of harassment against her that caused her to engage in a physical altercation that she otherwise would not have engaged. That makes him responsible for the assault, not her.
I think you need to read a little more on the concepts like "instigation" and "incitement". The actor is not always the person legally or criminally responsible for their actions.
I would remind you that she isn't being charged: the state does not think she committed battery.
Did you read anything else I said? Proof. You need proof of AI nudes. You need a warrant to get proof. Without proof it's an accusation. Ok I'm leaving this conversation because you refuse to read.
*Is it the order of events that has you confused? Event 1) the accusation. Event 2) the fight leading to the suspension. There is no proof of AI nudes at this point. Event 3) at a date far after the suspension, the sheriff's investigation does get the proof. But the suspension is now in the past. Ok that's as much goodwill I'm going to give you. Out.
Ah, I see what you're saying. The school had to take some sort of action quickly after the fight, and you believe they didn't have the full evidence available at that time. You're arguing that they did the best they could with the information they had at the time.
Did you happen to click any of the links in the article?
From that link:
The preponderance of the evidence available to the school at the time she was suspended was in her favor, and against the boy. Yet they chose to take action against her rather than him.
Does any of that win me a little more goodwill on the timeline?
I would note that the school had fucked up before the physical altercation, by putting her and her harasser in close proximity on the same bus, effectively unsupervised, after they were aware of the complaints she made against him.
Sexual harassment and bullying are absolutely something schools have the capacity to punish. Don't be absurd.
And when it gets severe enough it warrants, oh I don't know let's just think here, an actual criminal investigation and actual judicial proceedings. You don't want to (and can't) leave criminal investigations up to some measly school admin. Don't be absurd indeed. I'm gonna leave this conversation because you have no idea how things work. You fell for the clickbait and can't get yourself out of it.
The school is entirely capable of adding shit on top. They literally don't even need an investigation to suspend a kid.
They didn't even protect the victim when it was their jurisdiction.
I believe you need a warrant (read judge) to force students to unlock their phone. So no I don't believe they have jurisdiction or even the ability to investigate properly. That's why it went to actual law enforcement.