Technology

You may not have noticed there was a nude AI deepfake of Trump that's been viewed tens of millions of times, aired on Comedy Central.

Taylor swift nude gross, but trump nude good? You have rare taste it seems.

You really don't think there's a 'freedom' version being mailed to the Epstein mailing list?

Reminder that Elon Musk told people on Reddit, that he will set the Age of Consent to 14 on Mars, if not lower.

There’s definitely models that have no problem with that yeah

The real hero

The difference between impregnating and being the father figure. He's such a piece of shit.

Grok has guardrails, it's just they're there for different reasons.

Oh it's refined donkey shit alright, it has guardrails just like any commercial LLM.

@deathbird@mander.xyz @florencia@lemmy.blahaj.zone

Grok is not that free of guardrails.

I say as a person who sometimes have the (bad) idea of feeding every LLMs I could possibly try, with things I create (drawings, poetry, code golfing). I don't use LLMs to "create" things (they're not really that capable of real creativity, despite their pseudo-stochastic nature), I use them to parse things I created, which is a very different approach. Not Grok anymore, because I have long deleted my account there, but I used to use it.

Why do I feed my creations to LLMs, one might ask? I have my reasons: LLMs are able to connect words to other words thus giving me some unexpectedness and connections I couldn't see on my own creation, and I'm highly aware of how it's being used for training... but humans don't really value my creations given the lack of real feedback across all my works, so I don't care it's used for training. Even though I sometimes use it, I'm still a critique of LLMs, and I'm aware of both their pros and cons (more cons than pros if we consider corp LLMs).

So, back to the initial point: one day I did this disturbing and gory drawing (as usual for my occult-horror-gothic art), a man standing in formal attire with some details I'll refrain from specifying here.

ChatGPT accepted to parse it. Qwen's QVQ accepted it as well. DeepSeek's Janus also accepted to parse it.

Google's Gemini didn't, as usual: not because of the explicit horror, but because of the presence of human face, even if drawn. It refrains from parsing anything that closely resemble faces.

Anthropic's Claude wasn't involved, because I'm already aware of how "boringly puritan" it's programmed to be, it doesn't even accept conversations about demonolatry, it's more niched for programming.

But what surprised me on that day was how Grok refused to accept my drawing, and it was a middle-layer between the user and the LLM complaining about "inappropriate content".

Again, it was just a drawing, a fairly well-performed digital drawing with explicit horror, but a drawing nonetheless, and Grok's API (not Grok per se) complained about that. Other disturbing drawings of mine weren't refused at that time, just that one, I still wonder why.

Maybe these specific guardrails (against highly-explicit horror art, deep occult themes, etc) aren't there in paid tiers, but I doubt it. Even Grok (as in the "public-facing endpoint") has some puritanness on it, especially against very niche themes such as mine (occult and demonolatry, explicit Lovecraftian horror, etc).

Public opinion is what you were looking for there.

Swift could easily get a lawsuit set up against them and most likely win

How would that work? If someone drew a photorealistic painting of pretty much the same, under what legal claim could Swift "most likely win"?

I mean I get what you are saying, but at the same time this does need attempting with every image generation AI and reporting on if successful. If this capability existed but wasn't general knowledge it calls cause serious issues.

Better that it's made public so that the information is in the public consciousness.

Because its not a legal entity. And when it becomes one... well lets just hope it never becomes one.