Hacker News Reader

You can create all kinds of nefarious artworks that are hurtful to protected classes using a pencil, or adobe creative suite or what have you. Doesn't mean those things are illegal.

Charge the creator not the tool. This seemed immediately obvious to me, but apparently not to most layman (including the California AG, apparently).

View on HN

Do you have a magic pencil that can do all this without human involvement?

Does it matter? A few years ago I had the same concern, but it's been easy for a while now to create photorealistic fakes of anything you'd like, and in practice it doesn't seem to have been more convincing than any other form of lying. There are of course a couple specific areas where the mere existence of a picture matters even if people know it's fake (see e.g. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/students-are-sharing-sexua...).

We're splitting hairs here. Open up the ChatGPT window and have it do something nefarious without you touching the keyboard. Then these AG actions would make sense.

It's not splitting hairs at all. If I ask you to do something illegal and you do it, who do you think is liable?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com