| ▲ | afavour a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
You and I must have different definitions of the word “immediately”. The article you posted is from January 15th. Here is a story from January 2nd: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c98p1r4e6m8o > Have the other AI companies followed suit? They were also allowing users to undress real people No they weren’t? There were numerous examples of people feeding the same prompts to different AIs and having their requests refused. Not to mention, X was also publicly distributing that material, something other AI companies were not doing. Which is an entirely different legal liability. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | chrisjj a day ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> Which is an entirely different legal liability. In UK, it is entirely the same. Near zero. Making/distributing a photo of a non-consenting bikini-wearer is no more illegal when originated by computer in bedroom than done by camera on public beach. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | bonesss a day ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
The part of X’s reaction to their own publishing I’m most looking forward to seeing in slow-motion in the courts and press was their attempt at agency laundering by having their LLM generate an apology in first-person. “Sorry I broke the law. Oops for reals tho.” | |||||||||||||||||