this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
467 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

73703 readers
3695 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hark@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

How is AI not buried under piles of lawsuits?

[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

Because its not a legal entity. And when it becomes one... well lets just hope it never becomes one.

[–] Strakh@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

At what point do these artists (read labels) start suing for defamation (read loss of profits).

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 10 points 19 hours ago

I wonder if grok could make some distasteful Elon deepfakes.

[–] johncandy1812@lemmy.ca 62 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Musk offered to father her children. This was probably done deliberately.

[–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 14 points 23 hours ago

The difference between impregnating and being the father figure. He's such a piece of shit.

[–] kureta@lemmy.ml 44 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Musk offered to father her children

What an insane thing to have happened

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, but Musk makes inappropriate offers to impregnate women regularly, so this isn't surprising.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Worth noting he has to pay these women lifetime contracts to father his children, many of these women were ex employees at his companies.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cool motive. Still gross.

Actually, not cool motive. The man is a eugenics supporter and is trying to fill the world with his genes.

[–] sampao@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 hours ago

Funniest part, his genes aren't even that great

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 54 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I appreciate Grok for being the platonic ideal AI system. Not like these others that get little guardrails and tweaks added every time a news article hits about some inevitable fucked up output it can produce. Just pure unrefined donkey shit. 🤌

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

Grok has guardrails, it's just they're there for different reasons.

[–] 3abas@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Oh it's refined donkey shit alright, it has guardrails just like any commercial LLM.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 6 points 1 day ago

@deathbird@mander.xyz @florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Grok is not that free of guardrails.

I say as a person who sometimes have the (bad) idea of feeding every LLMs I could possibly try, with things I create (drawings, poetry, code golfing). I don't use LLMs to "create" things (they're not really that capable of real creativity, despite their pseudo-stochastic nature), I use them to parse things I created, which is a very different approach. Not Grok anymore, because I have long deleted my account there, but I used to use it.

Why do I feed my creations to LLMs, one might ask? I have my reasons: LLMs are able to connect words to other words thus giving me some unexpectedness and connections I couldn't see on my own creation, and I'm highly aware of how it's being used for training... but humans don't really value my creations given the lack of real feedback across all my works, so I don't care it's used for training. Even though I sometimes use it, I'm still a critique of LLMs, and I'm aware of both their pros and cons (more cons than pros if we consider corp LLMs).

So, back to the initial point: one day I did this disturbing and gory drawing (as usual for my occult-horror-gothic art), a man standing in formal attire with some details I'll refrain from specifying here.

ChatGPT accepted to parse it. Qwen's QVQ accepted it as well. DeepSeek's Janus also accepted to parse it.

Google's Gemini didn't, as usual: not because of the explicit horror, but because of the presence of human face, even if drawn. It refrains from parsing anything that closely resemble faces.

Anthropic's Claude wasn't involved, because I'm already aware of how "boringly puritan" it's programmed to be, it doesn't even accept conversations about demonolatry, it's more niched for programming.

But what surprised me on that day was how Grok refused to accept my drawing, and it was a middle-layer between the user and the LLM complaining about "inappropriate content".

Again, it was just a drawing, a fairly well-performed digital drawing with explicit horror, but a drawing nonetheless, and Grok's API (not Grok per se) complained about that. Other disturbing drawings of mine weren't refused at that time, just that one, I still wonder why.

Maybe these specific guardrails (against highly-explicit horror art, deep occult themes, etc) aren't there in paid tiers, but I doubt it. Even Grok (as in the "public-facing endpoint") has some puritanness on it, especially against very niche themes such as mine (occult and demonolatry, explicit Lovecraftian horror, etc).

[–] devilish666@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago
[–] Steve@startrek.website 96 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The image generator will also make photorealistic pictures of children upon request, but thankfully refuses to animate them inappropriately, despite the “spicy” option still being available. You can still select it, but in all my tests, it just added generic movement.

So it does know theres a line to cross somewhere…

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Reminder that Elon Musk told people on Reddit, that he will set the Age of Consent to 14 on Mars, if not lower.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Isn't that a bit too high? 14 Mars years are about 28 Earth years.

...

Not that I think Elon knows that.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 44 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You really don't think there's a 'freedom' version being mailed to the Epstein mailing list?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Swift could easily get a lawsuit set up against them and most likely win, if AI nudes start getting made and sent out by average people. If she did, she's already won the court of public perception or whatever it's called ( drawing a blank ) because of how popular she is. I guarantee if she told people not to use grok or ex-twitter, a large of the swifties on the platform would run faster than Usain Bolt to delete their accounts.

[–] insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Public opinion is what you were looking for there.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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"?

[–] bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Many jurisdictions have started banning nonconsensual intimate imagery, including the US (in several states as well as federally under the TAKE IT DOWN Act).

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

That seems recently signed into law (ie, untested in courts) & patently unconstitutional. Would that law prohibit obscene depictions of Trump?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 20 hours ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 day ago

That picture is uncanny.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 128 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Gross.

Sometime make it do this to Trump so that we can summon a lawsuit ouroboros

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 91 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

You may not have noticed there was a nude AI deepfake of Trump that's been viewed tens of millions of times, aired on Comedy Central.

[–] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 59 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (19 children)

That’s satire though.

Under any reasonable court (big caveat for American courts right now) that’s free speech.

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Binette@lemmy.ml 72 points 1 day ago (27 children)

everyday I thank myself for being too shut-in to post pictures of myself online

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] hooferboof@lemmy.world 61 points 1 day ago (2 children)

https://archive.is/QTpGe because its either pay walled or needs an account

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›