Spicy is one thing. A fake nude is a violation of image rights and of bodily autonomy. It’d be different if there were real nude photos of her released out in the public with her permission.

Of course you disagree, you are not the one being targeted.

I wonder how long you would stand being impersonated in various situations. Or your parents. Or your significant other. Or your (adult) kids. Would you still tell them to their face there is "no violation"?

You're wrong, I would still disagree. In fact, you're welcome to make some fake nudes of me, my pictures aren't too hard to find.

Of you. But you dodge my question about people who aren't you but you care about (if there is any of the sort).

I answered that question in the first sentence of my previous comment...

Personality rights are a thing, publishing your likeness without your consent in particular in any commercial context is illegal in just about any jurisdiction on earth.

I meant from a moral perspective. I'm aware that it is illegal in some jurisdictions but this would almost certainly not be considered "commercial use" in the context of likeness (unless the author uses the generated picture in an ad, etc.).

If Grok is charging a fee to do this, then it's "commercial use".

I highly doubt so. Paid software like Photoshop has been used to generate fake pictures for ages and yet they are legal. It's how the generated pictures are used that matters.

i think the more this becomes normalised the less taboo it will become. people will no longer care about it

> people will no longer care about it

I wonder how Taylor Swift feels about it.

She feels exactly how management tells her to feel. If they could point to her liking it being good for her brand and business she would be all over it.

Why don't you think she has any agency of her own? She's a billionaire, I doubt she's letting her management tell her how to think and feel about her own body. Do you think Zuckerberg or Bezos let their management "feel exactly how their management tell them to feel"?

I’m sure Swift the Person has thoughts that come from a single source. Swift the Brand, is not that.

My reason for why I don’t think she has agency over her brand has more support than your thinking she does.

What are your feelings on revenge porn, peeping toms, sexual assault, rape, and pedophilia?

what's your feeling about thinking about a person while jerking off?

Are you trying to say that’s equivalent to providing a service that creates fake nude images of an uninvolved third party?

You keep typing “fake”, but I feel like you aren’t understanding it.

They are AI generated images of something that was never released as an actual photograph. People literally call things like this “deepfakes”.

I feel at this point like you’re some rapey pervert who just feels entitled to the bodies of other people.

I suspect the "general public" won't see it that way. Many will find the allowance for a "spicy" setting kind of gross.

This setting is put behind the age "verification".

That makes sense. Thanks.

it's a pretty reasonable position for someone to think "a company now sells a service that lets you generate fake porn of any human" is a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed, regardless of whether you make people jump through some notional age verification hope

>it's a pretty reasonable position for someone to think "a company now sells a service that lets you generate fake porn of any human" is a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed,

There is a surprising number of people here on HN (and I imagine elsewhere) that think generating fake porn of real people without their consent is totally fine, if not their right to do so.

You can see some of them cropping up in the comments here already.

Such a shame there is no explicit and complete list of all rights, so that everything that's off that list is obviously prohibited.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but generating and distributing non-consensual nudes is already "obviously prohibited" (by law) in many jurisdictions. It is also explicitly prohibited by twitter's terms of service.

And those people are why I wish this site had a block commenter ability instead of having to bother reading them

what about drawing a picture of your mum getting bukkaked? that existed long before AI and im sure you can find someone so good at drawing you thought it was a picture. i want equivocy in legislation, its either naughty or its not

>what about drawing a picture of your mum getting bukkaked?

It's really weird that you chose to make your point this way instead of the hundreds of other ways you could have phrased it.

I mean, it's obvious you're just trolling, so I'm not surprised. But I hope one day you think back on some of the things you typed out and cringe at how fucking weird it is.

so we can draw deepfakes then? just not digitally draw them?

Calling this "gross" infantilizes both you and the issue. People jerk off and fantasize about others, and this is obviously going to be a great tool for that. The obvious issue is a lack of respect for another person's privacy and dignity, which is interesting, but probably a losing battle simply because the demand is out there. I do not think a comparison to something like CP would be appropriate simply because CP is naturally repulsive for most people, whereas seeing an attractive celebrity naked is naturally appealing to most people.

I chose "gross" because I suspected it would be a common reaction among many (not tech savvy) people.

I'm not sure how I feel about pornography in general. I suppose I prefer that it not be main-stream though — preferring that it hang back with a kind of false modesty.

That would run contrary to my experience. I've found there to be a huge pseudo-morality obsession with things involving sex/gender among middish age tech types, which porn gets wrapped up in, whereas the average person (outside of those who take their religion seriously) tends to have a more liberal attitude towards it.

But, that said, I actually agree with you. I'm certain that porn becoming so extremely main stream, to the point that pornhub's little audio theme or color scheme are essentially memes, is probably not a great thing overall for a healthy society. On the other hand I think it's probably inescapable. If one step's outside Western focused porn sites, there's a ton of porn even coming from places like Iran, literal morality police and Islamic fundamentalism notwithstanding. And I'm pretty happy with my relationship with porn, speaking as somebody married with children, so I don't see why that's unreasonable to expect of other people. Perhaps I'm simply falling into that 'middish age tech type' trap.

---

As an anecdote, I remember one of my first computers was a (rather dated) original IBM machine with an integrated ~6 inch monochrome green screen. In learning how computers worked at the time I was running essentially every *.com file. And one of them was... yip, 'porn.' It was a program with an innocuous name, tucked in the operating system directory, that would display some rather nice boobs made out of ascii characters on a 80x25 character display. I enjoyed that program.

Good thing they are not forced to use the “spicy” setting.

I wonder if they just labeled it as the "Show me porn" setting if all of this misunderstanding could have been eliminated.

I believe only 10% of the output was to that level of "spice". Which makes me question the intent of the "spicy" setting, unless it is just separate a fool from his money.

> She asked for a “spicy” image and she got exactly that.

But, but, what it just she wanted to see her in a Spice Girls costume??