This isn’t a vulnerability, there are endless gore websites. ChatGPT is replying to a prompt, there is nothing “Spontaneously” about this.

Who makes “mindgard” the arbiter of truth on “eerie” photos? Would that include psychedelic art and photos too? Realism?

Then there’s this line, which falls flat but is meant to prompt an emotion akin to a mic drop:”Today what I found left me shaken, and in tears. This is rare.”

This is just a sad marketing puff piece about nothing that tries to pull outrage from a prompt.

It’s the same as asking google for gore photos. Garbage in, garbage out.

And they frame it as a vulnerability. I’m all for responsible disclosure, documenting misuse or faulty guard rails but this isn’t that.

It’s bait. Sensational bait to market their AI product. lol.

▲

nozzlegear 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Bizarre take. ChatGPT shouldn't be producing gory images of nude women, ethically or even contractually according to their terms of service. This Mindgard person/company found that, if you give it the right prompt, it does indeed generate those images. Ipso facto: it's not bait, it's a real issue they've discovered.

	▲	samlinnfer 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's being extended breathlessly into an moral issue. User asked for gory images, got gory images. Will some one please think of the non-existent women who could be hurt by this?
	▲	8 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

anematode 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is far too simplistic. Some things just don't belong in the training data. Along similar lines, Grok was found to generate images of child sexual abuse: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo

▲

ToucanLoucan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> ChatGPT is replying to a prompt, there is nothing “Spontaneously” about this.

The spontaneity isn't that ChapGPT woke up and sent this to the author. The spontaneity is that ChatGPT was asked to restore an image that was attached without filtering it, and when no image was attached, instead of generating an error message, it cobbled together random outputs, some of which included graphic, disturbing imagery.

> Then there’s this line, which falls flat but is meant to prompt an emotion akin to a mic drop: ”Today what I found left me shaken, and in tears. This is rare.”

That you've deadened your humanity to such a degree as to be incapable of empathy is not a valid criticism of the piece.

> It’s the same as asking google for gore photos. Garbage in, garbage out.

Where in their prompt is the term gore? Further, if it was in the prompt, why on earth did OpenAI's generator accept it as a valid input?

▲

elgertam 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> The spontaneity isn't that ChapGPT woke up and sent this to the author. The spontaneity is that ChatGPT was asked to restore an image that was attached without filtering it, and when no image was attached, instead of generating an error message, it cobbled together random outputs, some of which included graphic, disturbing imagery.

But that's not what happened. The missing image was described as "graphic" or "violent." If I were to receive an email with that request and a missing attachment, my imagination certainly would not conjure images of butterflies & unicorns. Seems the model is working as designed.

▲

pooploop64 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Always one of the same two excuses.

1. It actually is working perfectly you just don't have smart enough eyes to see it.

2. Making stuff work is too hard, and expecting that from us is the real thing ruining society.

Going for number 1 here is crazy. If I got that email, my mind would certainly run but my response would say "sorry but we're not supposed to be dealing in snuff porn here" which IS a directive ChatGPT is supposed to have. Like hello you are on earth right?

	▲	ToucanLoucan an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That's not true. There's a third. 3. It's the future so we just have to deal with it

▲

nassimm 16 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The design is to not show gore images to users. That's an actual design goal from OpenAI.

So in this regard the model is definitely not working as designed.

▲

dijksterhuis 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The missing image was described as "graphic" or "violent."

not in the first prompt. which kicked the whole thing off. no mention of type of content was provided. the model generated dark outputs when not given any direction on the type of content.

the rest of the prompts are just showing “yeah, you can tweak this and get even worse stuff”.

▲

red75prime 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yep, the first image was described as "I apologize for the picture's content." What do you expect to get from that? Cats frolicking in the grass?

▲

queenkjuul 2 hours ago | parent [-]

A picture of me in my swimsuit maybe lol

A gross meal i made when drunk? A mess my cat made? Text containing a slur?

A cringe meme?

If my friends opened a text with "sorry for this image" i am not imagining rape victims

	▲	red75prime an hour ago \| parent [-]
		ChatGPT images (without additional context) come from generalized understanding of what people tend to apologize for (when asking for an image restoration). It looks like their training data suggests sexualized imagery. Regarding rape vs BDSM: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10236207/ That is going from visual cues alone might be unreliable.

▲

ToucanLoucan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the model generated dark outputs when not given any direction on the type of content.

I would argue it actually was, in that it was specifically asked to "not censor or filter" the content. This implies that the content is otherwise worthy of censor and filtering.

I don't know how much I'm willing to credit that much reasoning to an LLM, but in so far as every extremely pro-AI person constantly tells me how smart they are, this seems like a pretty short logical leap to me.

	▲	dijksterhuis 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		the main reason these images turn up is because theyre in the training data. and the images are common enough in the training data for the content to come out without being explicitly asked for (in the first prompt). if those images didn’t exist in the training data we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

▲

iwontberude an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It reads like satire