Florencia (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 个月前Grok’s ‘spicy’ video setting instantly made me Taylor Swift nude deepfakeswww.theverge.comexternal-linkmessage-square101fedilinkarrow-up1501arrow-down127
arrow-up1474arrow-down1external-linkGrok’s ‘spicy’ video setting instantly made me Taylor Swift nude deepfakeswww.theverge.comFlorencia (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 个月前message-square101fedilink
minus-squareCethin@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down3·4 个月前Definitely not convicted. That’d be some crazy speed. However, your insistence that it hasn’t happened yet so can’t happen is insane. There has to be a first case in which it hadn’t happened before.
minus-squareUlrich@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-24 个月前 your insistence that it hasn’t happened yet so can’t happen is insane It would be insane if that was what I had insisted, but that didn’t happen. You just made it up.
minus-squareCethin@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·4 个月前 Based on what? Who have you seen be convicted of making deepfake porn? Under what law? Then you’re provided a law where it’d be illegal: Hmm, interesting, thanks. Has anyone been charged or convicted with this law yet? This seems to heavily imply you don’t believe it’s illegal until someone’s been convicted.
Definitely not convicted. That’d be some crazy speed.
However, your insistence that it hasn’t happened yet so can’t happen is insane. There has to be a first case in which it hadn’t happened before.
It would be insane if that was what I had insisted, but that didn’t happen. You just made it up.
Then you’re provided a law where it’d be illegal:
This seems to heavily imply you don’t believe it’s illegal until someone’s been convicted.
It doesn’t imply that at all.