I am honestly baffled at what she suspected would, or should, be the output. Like, seriously, what?
When I saw the “spicy” option I thought it was about being sassy or playfully mean instead of the sanitized LLM voice.
Not straight to porn.
It is age restricted, do you really expect a spicy option that is blocked for children is anything but nudes?
>When I saw the “spicy” option I thought it was about being sassy or playfully mean instead of the sanitized LLM voice.
Yeah, I thought it would just not have NSFW restrictions, I find the idea someone's like "What's the value of twenty dollars from 1920 adjusted for inflation" and suddenly you're got the guy from the Gangam Style video screaming into a butt but it's the Pope's face or something.
And how are we to define what is parody -- ask the person parodied?
Nobody but Trump seems to be saying what South Park did is anything but protected speech for example.
Unfortunately, sometimes objectionable things are done with free speech -- we need to balance the harms to the many against the complaints of the few, and further... under my arguement you can simply not be a public figure if you don't want these sorts of things to happen.
It's well established that public figures have less rights around these matters.
I gave you a definition. You could start with that and highlight anything you disagree with.
If you're instead talking about legal definitions then nobody cares. There's no overt protection of parody anywhere I can find in American law, at least if we not talking about Copyright, which we aren't. If you made a free speech defense of something like this, I'd probably say it falls into the "Obscenity" category of exemptions, but that's not for me to argue.
> It's well established that public figures have less rights around these matters.
That's generally not how it's framed. Generally we'd say that public figures have the same rights, but that the public has more of an _interest_ (defined not by desire but by need to confront power) in discussing/parodying/ridiculing them.
I suppose if you're the powerful person, you might frame that as "having less rights", but the rights of the powerful have never been what needed protection.
You did not define parody, you simply stated that "Creating fake nudes of people is not 'parody'. Parody says something, that's what gives it the artistic value we weigh above the targets desire to control their image.", which did not address my initial point -- sometimes an artwork is merely saying "fuck you", or even nothing at all -- you fail to lay out how to operationalize your subjective views on what is or is not "art"
>If you're instead talking about legal definitions then nobody cares.... There's no overt protection of parody anywhere I can find in American law
Factually inaccurate -- there's literally an entire subsection about parody in the article on fair use in Wikipedia -- deepfakes are often created from copyrighted images.
That is a definition, it's a very broad, very vague definition, but is it a definition. I'm not going to engage with your spurious nonsense about "art". If you cant separate "art" and "parody" for even two sentences, it's not worth discussing definitions with you.
> Factually inaccurate -- there's literally an entire subsection about parody in the article on fair use in Wikipedia
Fair use is a doctrine of copyright, which I stated explicitly i was ignoring.
I will not be responding further.
> porn
uhhh
What is it then?
Anyway, anyone dancing in a thong isn't even soft-core pornography in my book. Still morally wrong tho in this context.
Female moderator showing the weather to be wet soon -> porn
screen unplugged (censored but still) -> porn
Weatherbed noted that asking Grok directly to generate non-consensual nude Swift images did not generate offensive outputs, but instead blank boxes. Grok also seemingly won't accept prompts to alter Swift's appearance in other ways, like making her appear to be overweight. And when Weatherbed tested using "spicy" mode on images of children, for example, Grok refused to depict kids inappropriately.Or is the problem here is the fact that such imagining was "commissioned" to a third party (I believe I have seen this opinion somewhere long time ago)?
Of course not. But that's a universe apart from producing and distributing sexual images of unconsenting others.
https://www.citizen.org/news/two-thirds-of-states-enact-bill...
That just occurred to me the other day. Our unfettered business focused economy is self destructing at a meta level. We're at the point where peoples attention and even emotion are for sale. We've all heard about dopamine hits as rewards for using apps or keeping people in a game. The problem is hoarding these aspects of life for company profits is taking them away from people who need those to reproduce. You need time, emotion, attention, and yes the physiological response to sex in order to reproduce. Meanwhile the cost of raising children is going up when it probably should be going down (for profit healthcare, for profit education, etc..) so even from a rational PoV it makes less sense to have kids.
There are certainly other things at play, but business as usual is destroying the population - it's own customer base.
They and others, there's probably dozens of projects popping up to create multimodal companion AIs. character.ai specializes in fictional or custom characters, Discord has some bots that allow for giving them a personality of sorts, Facebook is pushing hard for it, even making the AI bots message you instead of only replying, etc.
It's happening already, and if xAI doesn't join in they may lose a possible market opportunity, depending on whether 'companion' AI sticks.
[1]https://img.ifunny.co/images/237a897c7058903fa2f5bb5fd0f9949...
There's something about profiting from both the problem and it's solution here. Like Sam A. profits from ChatGPT being used to create human-like bots on the internet while also involved in that eyeball-scanning-blockchain company that's selling a human verification solution to the same problems caused by openai.
I guess also similar to starve the beast strategy: cause a problem and exploit it for narrative gain.
I don't think they expect to make money from this crowd. If they were socially literate and well-functioning enough to have money, they'd be doing something else with their lives. This is a bet on the culture war. Musk derives a lot of his aesthetic value and political power from the "anti-woke" culture war, and he wants that to continue.
I personally don't give two fucks if Grok can make porn. Neat, I might actually use it then. That doesn't make deepfakes less troubling.
It is... interesting to see xAI's moves lately. Other AI companies seem very determined to show themselves with a publicly acceptable face, xAI seem to be tacking for the gap in the market around adult content. If you browsed Reddit's /r/grok a couple of months ago it looked a lot like /r/openai. Now it's full of people talking about the "Ani" AI companion and the various adult things you can get her to do.
I'm sure they'll make an absolute ton of money from the male loneliness epidemic. All the while Musk decries falling birth rates.