1·
11 hours agoGrok generated about 6,700 undressed images per hour.
That would be 3.35 BILLION dollars per hour if the maximum 500k fine was enforced for each.
AmbitiousProcess (they/them)
- 0 Posts
- 58 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
Cake day: June 6th, 2025
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
(I’m citing the law, not the article)
There’s a few things that I think help prevent something like that from happening.
“Nudify” or “nudified” means the process by which: an image or video is altered or generated to depict an intimate part not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual
“Intimate parts” includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.
So a reasonably sized bikini probably wouldn’t qualify, because it still covers intimate areas to some degree, but anything too skimpy would.
The prohibitions in subdivision 2 do not apply when the website, application, software, program, or other service requires the technical skill of a user to nudify an image or video.
So something like Photoshop wouldn’t qualify because you’d need the skills to actually edit images yourself.
I think this:
“No, see… My app is designed to show you what you look like in user-created outfits. Like a virtual closet mirror! What do you mean users are trying on tiny bikinis and clear cellophane dresses? How could I ever have planned for that?”
Would be prevented by this law, but with very good reason. Anyone developing a feature like that could very well simply develop a filter that can tell if too much of a sensitive area is being exposed that wasn’t previously there. If they put technical safeguards in place, and it takes reasonably large amounts of effort for a user to bypass, then the site wouldn’t be liable because it would require “technical skill of a user”.
A site like that can exist, and being able to digitally try on outfits is nice, but it shouldn’t be allowed to ignore the obvious consequences of not putting restrictions on how much skin can be shown.
116·2 days agoThis company is known for this. To clarify, I mean known for making deliberately inflammatory ads, then showing them as obtrusively or carelessly as possible, because it gets people to post about it.
The only reason their company got popular in the first place was when they put these ads everywhere to piss people off and generate engagement.
“The goal of the campaign was always to rage bait”
This guerrilla marketing approach, combined with traditional media coverage and tactics, led to significant success. Artisan saw a remarkable +197% growth in brand search traffic, quickly establishing itself as the most well-known AI employee creator.
191·5 days agoWatches
Smart ones can be useful. It’s nice to be able to check which app a notification came from and get a short preview without having to take your phone out of your pocket, which can also help people who suffer from the classic case of “I picked up my phone to check a notification and now I’m on TikTok”
Light Bulbs
I agree these don’t usually need to be smart, but there’s also good reasons for them. Changing lights/rooms while you’re away so it looks like someone’s home, setting them to slowly dim throughout the evening so you more naturally get tired on schedule, and the colors can be nice if you need to theme a space. Good for people who often host parties.
Kitchen appliances
Yeah I got nothing here, make 'em all dumb again 🙏
There is still a lot of good uses of “smart” tech, it’s just you’ll find most companies would rather cram it in everywhere rather than just where it’s most useful. For example, it can be good to have smart appliances like your water heater, if you want it to be able to adjust when it pre-heats water based on when it gets used the most, adjust based on the current cost of energy from the grid and output from home solar, etc.
Can also be good to have in something like a thermostat, or electronically connected blinds. You can have them raise and lower automatically based on the angle of the sun to automatically adjust the temperature in your house before relying on a more costly appliance like a heat pump.
Not all smart tech is bad, it’s just that most of it is.
10·9 days agoBut will Lidl actually listen? That’s the real question.
They might not care if one person tells them that, or even if many of them do, especially if they make the calculus that those people will probably still be buying other things at Lidl anyways.
If sales for the product drops because people are putting sticky notes on them, knocking them over or hiding them behind other products, etc, then Lidl has a reason to not bother with the hassle.
It also benefits movements through the radical flank effect. (e.g. when white people saw the Black Panther Party carrying guns to protect their community, MLK Jr’s fairly peaceful sit-ins seemed not that bad in comparison, and when having to make a choice on whether or not to give black people rights, it was easier to justify doing so if the perceived alternative was “black people in the streets with guns”)
In this case, the options then become “buy products that always have random sticky notes and are telling me I’m a bad person” vs “grab the product that doesn’t have the sticky notes”.
If it becomes increasingly annoying to buy products which support Israel because there’s constantly little sticky notes/stickers, people pushing things further back on shelves or flipping products around, etc, then it becomes a lot easier to justify just… not bothering buying the products that are being boycotted. (and it also saves people the hassle of looking up which products are being boycotted, which just makes the lives of anti-Zionists easier)
Plastic. Save the planet while getting fed!
12·17 days agoIt’s one thing for a working person to spend whatever income they don’t need to live at a baseline on others, it’s another for someone to hoard so much money they couldn’t necessarily physically spend it all if they tried, let alone spend it on things that would actually measurably increase their happiness.
You can argue regular people should donate more, and many actually do donate more than billionaires (as a % of assets/income) depending on which source you trust to give a good enough picture, (given a lot of donations are hard to track, both from large billionaire foundations and DAFs, to smaller donors with hard to classify spending) but there is a massive gap in how much a regular person can donate relative to a rich person, even just as a % of their income.
If you live paycheck to paycheck, but have, say, $20 left over at the end of the month in actual money to your name that hasn’t already gone to groceries, rent, etc, (and we assume you have no other assets), your net worth is $20.
If a billionaire donates $999,000,000 to charity, that would be the equivalent of that person donating $19.98.
Unlike that person though, the billionaire would have a million dollars in net worth, enough money to buy a house, while the regular person would have $0.02.
Even if these conditions aren’t perfect, and you assume maybe the person has some more net worth than $20, the point still stands. A billionaire can give up almost all of their net worth and still have enough money to comfortably live, or at least meet basic living standards for the average person. For most Americans, if they lose their job, have any surprise bill, or don’t make as much money as they expected to, they will instantly become homeless the next month rent is due, even if they give up none of their existing assets and just stop adding more money on top.
This is why “billionairism” (not a real term ofc) is such a damaging condition. It not only causes you to become obsessed with hoarding wealth that you don’t necessarily need, but it causes you to do so at the expense of others you could readily help without experiencing any material downside in your everyday life. There is no reason to hoard so much wealth.
Money is just a means to get or do things. If you are not spending that money, and you have more money than you’ll ever need to spend, that excess dollar value past your realistic spending for the rest of your life is just a valueless number to you. It’s a number that will never impact your life, but it can impact others. Hoarding it is stupid and immoral.
Given they state they ruled Live Nation overcharged by an estimated $1.72/ticket, which is obviously WAY less than anyone subject to all their junk fees and predatory resale pricing knows they’re paying, I’m a little concerned the remedies (e.g. divestment, un-merging the two companies) might not happen or be that significant, but we’ll see.
Any action against that horrible monopoly of a company is justified.
Only if other reviews are missing major context.
If a product I bought a year ago breaks, but everyone else wrote their review the day after they got it and said it was great, I’m gonna write a review telling you it might not last as long as you think, for example.
Hence why this article is about them leaving the openly Nazi billionaire’s platform while remaining on other platforms that are mainstream and still provide a lot of reach :)
I hate the AI slop images here, but the actual underlying article is still worth a read imo.
I totally recommend just clicking through random pages on there for a good 10 minutes or so. You’ll be surprised at how many random, cool, interesting things you find that you’d probably never see otherwise in a million years. (also an AMAZING place to find small blogs to add to your RSS reader of choice)
They feed a lot of this into their main search index if you pay for Kagi search too, so a lot of these sites will appear higher than they would on Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc, if their content is relevant. Especially fediverse sources.
The email dump has an email in it that’s ALL in Papyrus 😭
(File 2010-03-16 03-04-26 Sugar.eml)
Only when:
- The art isn’t significantly tied to the artist’s views/publicly spouted opinions/decisions/etc (e.g. if the artist is a Nazi, you can’t really separate an artwork they made with a swastika from the artist. If they painted a nice flower field 10 years ago, it’s hard to say that it is likely to carry any Nazi-adjacent themes, and is probably pretty distinct from whatever they’d make if they made art now)
- Consuming the art doesn’t financially support the artist (so in the case of J.K Rowling, you could pirate the books, or read a copy you already have, but you can’t buy new ones (or get them on loan from somewhere that could compensate her, like a library), pay to stream the movies, go to a theme park based on the work, or buy any licensed merchandise, assuming you want to not give her money and thus separate her from the work)
- Your consumption of the art won’t indirectly cause someone else to benefit the artist (e.g. you wear a shirt you already own with Harry Potter on it, and it reminds someone else of the series and they buy the books)
Could work. A lot of the time these current systems have… dubious liveness checks.
Over time they’re definitely going to get better, though, and I have a feeling that with AI watermarking being baked into a lot of the actually good models, it’s not going to be super reliable or repeatable.
Hence why I said most.
Regardless though, you know they’re gonna up the ante as they go. The more normalized it becomes to share more data, the easier it is for them to ask everyone for it too.
Most age verification providers also require video with the person’s face doing specific movements, which is then matched with the ID, so stealing an ID probably wouldn’t be enough.
Not that it’ll stop kids from trying, and sending their parent’s ID to some random sketchy company without their knowledge anyways.
That is why this bill imposes heavy fines. No company has good reason to operate a tool like this if every single nude generated can cost them half a million dollars each.
This bill isn’t a “you can do this but we’ll give you a slap on the wrist each time you do” bill, it’s a “if you build a tool like this and let it loose, your company is going bankrupt and we’re talking your life savings, so you’d better not”