I am honestly baffled at what she suspected would, or should, be the output. Like, seriously, what?
When I saw the “spicy” option I thought it was about being sassy or playfully mean instead of the sanitized LLM voice.
Not straight to porn.
> porn
uhhh
What is it then?
Anyway, anyone dancing in a thong isn't even soft-core pornography in my book. Still morally wrong tho in this context.
Female moderator showing the weather to be wet soon -> porn
screen unplugged (censored but still) -> porn
>When I saw the “spicy” option I thought it was about being sassy or playfully mean instead of the sanitized LLM voice.
Yeah, I thought it would just not have NSFW restrictions, I find the idea someone's like "What's the value of twenty dollars from 1920 adjusted for inflation" and suddenly you're got the guy from the Gangam Style video screaming into a butt but it's the Pope's face or something.
And how are we to define what is parody -- ask the person parodied?
Nobody but Trump seems to be saying what South Park did is anything but protected speech for example.
Unfortunately, sometimes objectionable things are done with free speech -- we need to balance the harms to the many against the complaints of the few, and further... under my arguement you can simply not be a public figure if you don't want these sorts of things to happen.
It's well established that public figures have less rights around these matters.
I gave you a definition. You could start with that and highlight anything you disagree with.
If you're instead talking about legal definitions then nobody cares. There's no overt protection of parody anywhere I can find in American law, at least if we not talking about Copyright, which we aren't. If you made a free speech defense of something like this, I'd probably say it falls into the "Obscenity" category of exemptions, but that's not for me to argue.
> It's well established that public figures have less rights around these matters.
That's generally not how it's framed. Generally we'd say that public figures have the same rights, but that the public has more of an _interest_ (defined not by desire but by need to confront power) in discussing/parodying/ridiculing them.
I suppose if you're the powerful person, you might frame that as "having less rights", but the rights of the powerful have never been what needed protection.
You did not define parody, you simply stated that "Creating fake nudes of people is not 'parody'. Parody says something, that's what gives it the artistic value we weigh above the targets desire to control their image.", which did not address my initial point -- sometimes an artwork is merely saying "fuck you", or even nothing at all -- you fail to lay out how to operationalize your subjective views on what is or is not "art"
>If you're instead talking about legal definitions then nobody cares.... There's no overt protection of parody anywhere I can find in American law
Factually inaccurate -- there's literally an entire subsection about parody in the article on fair use in Wikipedia -- deepfakes are often created from copyrighted images.
That is a definition, it's a very broad, very vague definition, but is it a definition. I'm not going to engage with your spurious nonsense about "art". If you cant separate "art" and "parody" for even two sentences, it's not worth discussing definitions with you.
> Factually inaccurate -- there's literally an entire subsection about parody in the article on fair use in Wikipedia
Fair use is a doctrine of copyright, which I stated explicitly i was ignoring.
I will not be responding further.
It is age restricted, do you really expect a spicy option that is blocked for children is anything but nudes?
Weatherbed noted that asking Grok directly to generate non-consensual nude Swift images did not generate offensive outputs, but instead blank boxes. Grok also seemingly won't accept prompts to alter Swift's appearance in other ways, like making her appear to be overweight. And when Weatherbed tested using "spicy" mode on images of children, for example, Grok refused to depict kids inappropriately.Or is the problem here is the fact that such imagining was "commissioned" to a third party (I believe I have seen this opinion somewhere long time ago)?
Of course not. But that's a universe apart from producing and distributing sexual images of unconsenting others.
https://www.citizen.org/news/two-thirds-of-states-enact-bill...