Also the oil paint doesn't have its own memory banks that someone could accuse of being trained on c---- p---. But still, I also wonder if Microsoft's liability would be less if it weren't screening images.

You’re stuffing “wow” into a new tech. Cameras were wow too at the time. Now generative ai is real and common like lens and paint.

Regulating it is as absurd as regulating Skyrim or a similar moddable game to prevent users from having it rough with elfs or whatever. It’s all corporate interests covering behind ethics, nothing more.

> it creates the realistic work on its own. It did it, not you.

It recombined other people's images based on analysis of your drawing. That's all it does.

It would be better for them if they said it's like a bottle of pouring ink--it forms random swirls and shapes and if someone sees a penis then it's not the problem of the ink manufacturer. The fact that they are sending images to their server means they are doing content screening and model training. That creates potential liability for them. They are already potentially exposed, because someone will sooner or later ask them to reveal the sources of images used for training their models and if it's their Bing image lake then they may have a problem of using other people's content without permission beyond research applications.