There’s the obvious harm that some people are just not equipped to see these graphic images, especially with no warning. Like people who have trauma from being in or around the acts being depicted

▲

paytonjjones 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Oh oh, I do research on this :)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702620921341

(Research aside, it seems unlikely to me that a lot of people would stumble on that prompt accidentally in any case)

▲

superb_dev 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fascinating! I’d be very interested in further research on people with trauma/PTSD

	▲	paytonjjones 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You might enjoy this, by a colleague of mine. It's a rarer situation, but this could be one harm pathway for those types of images. (In most cases, exposure is a good thing for people with PTSD) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702620917459

▲

queenkjuul an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Except the 100,000 or so who read the initial prompt on Twitter?

	▲	qingcharles 15 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The prompt has been going around for months. 99.9% of the output it generates is simply weird, in a funny way, not horrific like in the article.
	▲	paytonjjones an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If they saw it on Twitter then actively went and tried it, that wouldn't be very 'accidentally'

▲

applfanboysbgon 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Perhaps those people can refrain from jailbreaking ChatGPT to produce graphic imagery. There is not a single person in the world who will type any of the prompts noted in the article by accident.