• Kirp123
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 months ago

    Damn, they captured his likeness so well.

  • TrackinDaKraken
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s an impressive inflatable. Someone should AI a billionaire inflatable bouncy house with kids playing in it. Epstein, Trump, Musk, Bezos, Gates, etc.

  • Dewey McBrewster
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    This will be heavily downvoted but… people make childporn, not ai. Can’t blame the paintbrush for the artists intent.

    • Dewey McBrewster
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      At some point AI will infer beyond the wildest dreams. The mere description of an object will be enough to infer any combination.

      Through that inference, just knowing what a woman or a child looks like will be enough to put an image of child in any situation without any pre training images.

      What’s ironic is, you’ll actually have to upload and train on CSAM to catch these inferences.

      Do we ban hammers because a few people used them in the wrong way?

    • Anarki_@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      They fed the AI CSAM and now it creates new CSAM on demand.

      Stop defending them. They’d kill you a hundred times over for an extra cent.

    • jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Weirdo take tbh

      Thats a false equivalency. Grok is a service offered by the company, so it’s more like a weirdo going to a photographer to commission CP, and the photographer agreeing.

      Notice that it’s also not “art”. The photorealistic output is based on real images of real minors, meaning that any of the generated components are exploiting the minors in the training data since the AI doesn’t just create things out of thin air.

      Each individual view of CP is considered one instance of exploitation for that minor, so it stands to reason that each derivative work derived from that source image is an instance ofl exploitation on top of the exploitation of the minor in the photo that the AI is editing

      Hate that I had to explain this, glad that the tagging function exists in Lemmy. Tagging you as a CSAM Apologist and hope to never cross your path again!

    • a_non_monotonic_function
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You can’t ask, in human language, for a paintbrush to create anything.

      You sound remarkably comfortable with this shit.