this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
88 points (88.6% liked)

Technology

74098 readers
4750 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I could see some people making the argument that it could be considered defamatory especially in cases where it is being peddled as real.

Hard sell overall imo. But in any sort of malicious case we should punish the people behind it, not the software used to make it.

[–] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I feel like it's going to be a challenge to find a definition of malicious most people agree on.

Someone might think it's fine to make nudes of Captain Marvel for example because she's a character. They don't really care about the Brie Larson aspect.

I suppose there is the option to eliminate any kind of name based suggestions.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I personally don't see that much of an issue of people making "nudes" of others since they're fake anyway. I see an issue when they're used for things like bullying, blackmail, etc. That is technically already illegal, just not well enforced for any sort of digital topic and hasn't been for over a couple of decades now. Hence why I find the attention the LLM stuff gets exceptionally hypocritical and overblown, because non of them really cared when someone simply got cyberbullied, or blackmailed through classically edited images - let alone screamed for the outlawing of editing software or social media.

[–] 8ender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s tough though. Do you punish “the artist” or the person who commissioned them? Or both?

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What? We're talking about LLM created content, so there's no artist or person commissioning anything. But if you're asking for the hypothetical case of someone commissioning blackmail material at an artist (without telling them the purpose), then obviously the person who ends up doing the blackmail. I don't see the how the artist would've made themselves liable unless it was very obvious that it was intended to be used for illegal purposes.

[–] 8ender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

By artist I mean the LLM. Do you punish the LLM (or company running it) for generating it, or the person who asked it to?

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 1 points 1 year ago

So you're asking me a question that is literally already answered within the comment you were replying to.