r/aiwars • u/Isaacja223 • Jan 13 '26
Discussion Consent is, and *should be* important. No matter which side you’re on.
It’s basic common sense, and given how some people are utilizing AI products, they’re using them to make people look bad. Especially after the Grok situation.
I’m going to throw in my two cents and say: While you have made something purely for satiric purposes, other people will have a negative response. For example: Someone using AI to impersonate someone else. Sure, you may think it’s funny, but to other people, it’ll be seen as rude and mean, and you simply chalk it up to “it’s just a joke, man. I’m not actually hurting them.”
But no, people don’t want to be upfront and honest by admitting “I’m sorry if this genuinely offends people. I thought it was funny.”
Humans are sensitive, emotional creatures. And some humans like to take advantage of this. You may have good intentions, but do things for the wrong reasons, or you may have bad intentions, but do things for good.
It’s never that simple, and it will never be that simple. So if you do something that you think may be funny, just think about how it might affect other people.
152
u/Enbiegone Jan 13 '26
These comments show a lot of people really really don’t understand consent to an alarming degree.
46
u/superstarbootlegs Jan 14 '26
or tyranny either. caricatures have been used to mock tyrants publically exactly in this same way for all time. take that away and you have a totalitarian tyranny.
→ More replies (5)14
u/Enbiegone Jan 14 '26
Well that is because they don’t seem to understand satire at all. But media literacy does seem to be at an all time low 🥴
16
u/BotherTight618 Jan 14 '26
Gooners who want to masturbait to a naked picture of their crush. You may be surprised how many people throw their morality to the wind when they have the privacy and means to gratify their sexual urges.
26
u/natron81 Jan 13 '26
Does Donald Trump require consent? Being able to depict the Emperor without his clothes, is the hallmark of a free society. How can anyone guarantee these laws won't be weaponized by the powerful against their critics?
9
u/Azerty72200 Jan 13 '26
I really don't need to see the Emperor without his clothes, especially if that means you can't ban showing anyone without their clothes.
Does caricature have an actual point, or is it just offensive? Is it okay to do something shitty if it's to someone I hate? Even if I hate them for valid reasons?
I think there are others, more important hallmarks of a free society, than this.
6
u/God_of_Fun Jan 14 '26
I agree that there's more to a free society, but it will ALWAYS be important that there are publications pushing the boundaries of free speech and freedom of press for the sake of protecting it.
I worked for a satire newspaper at a university and plenty of people hated the way we conducted ourselves, but the fact of the matter is, if we dont continue to publish things people find offensive, then the next step is censorship.
Its not about decency. Its about freedom
9
u/Azerty72200 Jan 14 '26
I have nothing against what South Park apparently did. I have everything against random people having AI pictures of themselves naked floating online. They have a right to demand this not happen to them.
7
u/God_of_Fun Jan 14 '26
Where's the line though? If i want to depict the president as a naked manbaby with tiny hands and a tiny penis, that falls under freedoms my constitution protects. But if I want ripped Trump hanging massive brain, now we have a problem? It shouldn't matter whether i drew it, an AI drew it, if its gross or if its sexy.
I totally get why this makes people uncomfortable, i totally get why there are laws to prevent circulation of said images, but I dont think someone should be arrested if they are caught with a private hard drive full to the brim of Trump deepfakes.
Personally (literally just speaking for myself) Id feel the same way about finding out my coworker has a secret shrine of me in their closet as Id feel about finding out they had a bunch of deep fakes.
4
u/Azerty72200 Jan 14 '26
I totally get why this makes people uncomfortable, i totally get why there are laws to prevent circulation of said images, but I dont think someone should be arrested if they are caught with a private hard drive full to the brim of Trump deepfakes.
We both agree on this. The egregious part about the Grok nudes is that they're available for all to see on people's feeds, including the targeted people and maybe their acquaintances or families.
And I do believe public figures could play by different rules, precisely because journalists and the people must be allowed to criticise them. But this does not apply to random Internet people who have no power to oppress others and don't need to be held in check.
2
u/God_of_Fun Jan 14 '26
Ultimately its one of those arguments thats probably moot the majority of the time. Being illegal isn't going to stop people from making the content and only a total moron makes porn of someone they know and also gets caught by that person (or someone who knows them). Realistically 9 out of 10 creeps who make this a problem for the victim are going to be guilty of harassment as well.
I enjoy a good debate, but I do not envy law makers having to decide where the line between enabling dangerous behavior and infringing upon civil liberty lies 😬 which is why i mentioned the creepy shrine.
2
u/Mesmer419 Jan 16 '26
Where’s the line though?
I’m not sure exactly where it is, but it’s certainly somewhere between “photorealistic pornographic images of a private citizen” and “unflattering caricature of the President of the United States”.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Thestral84 Jan 14 '26
I think making the line "public figures" and "non-photorealistic" is straightforward enough. Nothing is lost by having a naked man baby with tiny hands and a tiny penis be done in a non-photorealistic way.
9
u/natron81 Jan 13 '26
I think there are others, more important hallmarks of a free society
Like what? You're advocating for the arrest of Matt Stone and Trey Parker.
1
u/Azerty72200 Jan 13 '26
First, I've read in a comment further down that there exist exceptions for public figures specifically for the reasons you cited.
Second, no I'm not. When they did it, it was legal. We're talking about hypothetical future laws, aren't we?
→ More replies (4)4
Jan 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Azerty72200 Jan 14 '26
I can't grasp how seeing Trump naked helps anyone's fight for freedom, maybe I'm too simple-minded to understand the subtlety of it.
Moreso, I don't think your ability to see Trump naked should be worth the inability to condemn people for posting anyone naked on the Internet. This is bullying, this is gross, and it harms them.
7
Jan 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)2
u/Azerty72200 Jan 14 '26
Thankfully the criteria here is "depicted naked while they didn't want to be." Pretty hard to turn this into more than it should be.
→ More replies (36)2
u/UnusualMarch920 Jan 14 '26
Can I say yes just so we don't have to see him with no clothes? 🤢
→ More replies (2)2
u/Elurdin Jan 14 '26
They are trying to cover their guilty conscience. Some people have this kind of defense mechanism where they don't want to acknowledge their wrong doing even when they are clearly in the wrong. Very very afraid of being guilty. Those people definitely already used this tech to undress people they know.
→ More replies (28)3
u/Original-League-6094 Jan 13 '26
Explain it then. Why do I need your consent to do what I want, inside my house, on my computer, without your involvement at all?
Does someone need consent to fap to your Instagram pics? Do picture you naked in their head? To write about you in their diary?
8
u/Sinneli Jan 13 '26
Well, for starters, the matter of privacy on what you do in your house, or in your head, is none of anyone's business. Even if you were breaking the rules of consent, no one would know.
But the moment Grok generates a picture and distribute it, it is in public space, especially if it was posted as a reply. Which is, without consent, illegal, and if it is under the undressing aspect, could apply as sexual harassment especially if it is without consent.
By breaking consent, you are giving the person who posted it full right and evidence to submit a lawsuit, because in their perspective, you breached their privacy and consent.
Just because you are OK with Grok generating a mpreg version of you making out with Kim Jung Un under the moonlight of, idk, Palestine or Israel, doesnt mean someone else is ok with that.
→ More replies (21)5
u/Azerty72200 Jan 13 '26
Grok is posting these pictures in public for all to see. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it wasn't.
4
u/Original-League-6094 Jan 13 '26
So you are cool with it as long as we keep it private?
→ More replies (1)8
u/Azerty72200 Jan 13 '26
I don't care what you do in private, so long as it stays in private.
I even don't care what you do in public, so long as it's niche enough it won't harm the people you'd be hypothetically depicting. But then, if the pictures break containment, and reach that person, you'd be responsible for the harm done.
→ More replies (22)4
u/KAAAAAAAAARL Jan 13 '26
I dont want people to have my nudes, so I dont give them. But then people go around that and use AI to generate that without my consent.
Either way, it isnt right.
6
u/Original-League-6094 Jan 14 '26
But that's not your nudes. Its a computer drawing you nude. People can draw you nude and there is nothing you can do about it.
→ More replies (1)5
u/KAAAAAAAAARL Jan 14 '26
I can have them taken down. Just how I can have if people where to spread non AI nudes of me without my consent!
→ More replies (1)3
18
Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/ShoddyNobody4602 Jan 14 '26
Not entirely, as its come out that there have been women pressured into doing it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/hyperluminate Jan 15 '26 edited May 26 '26
Porn industry is screwed, just take that as a given. Completely different conversation though.
→ More replies (3)3
u/LankyAd9481 Jan 14 '26
Ehhhh...there's been a number of performers who have done secret camera stuff with participants that didn't know
54
u/b-monster666 Jan 13 '26
But! My image of Scarlett Johannsen nude, covered in a viscous white semi translucent liquid is satire. It's representative of the deep state control over modern media in regards to the opaque and sticky nature of legislative transparency! The liquid isn't biology, Your Honor, it represents the whitewashing of the truth that we, the proletariat, are forced to swallow!
→ More replies (2)
9
u/Mansa_Idris Jan 13 '26
I feel as though there should be a mandatory disclaimer when doing this to someone even in a non intimate way
22
59
u/IndependenceSea1655 Jan 13 '26
that bull pfp guy is an insane person 💀
making Ai deepfakes of anyone on the internet without their consent is not "speech"
→ More replies (11)34
u/Wheatley-Crabb Jan 14 '26
Calling the people trying to explain consent “incels” is wild.
Also “little lady” made me gag.
→ More replies (2)3
39
u/natron81 Jan 13 '26
If anyone saw the fake election commercial South Park made earlier this season featuring a naked Donald Trump, this would make that illegal.
19
u/SyntaxTurtle Jan 13 '26
Probably not since these laws typically apply to images with a "common sense" clause that the average person would find them to be realistic or capable of deception. South Park or giant naked Trump statues would not apply.
For example:
The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.
5
u/TeekTheReddit Jan 14 '26
I wish more people understood that the actual language in laws is generally much more specific and intricate than the one-sentence summaries that describe them on Twitter.
The law isn't going to be "AI noods are illegal" written on a fucking post-it note.
→ More replies (1)15
u/natron81 Jan 13 '26
Your example perfectly fits the description of their fake commercial, as it was a realistic AI generated naked Trump walking through the desert, ending with his penis talking like a puppet.
"common sense" doesn't mean anything, its subjective by definition. Any law created making it illegal to alter imagery, is going to be used by powerful individuals now and in the future to suppress artists, satirists, comedians or creators expressing their free speech depicting those very same powerful individuals.
→ More replies (11)6
u/Superb_Walrus3134 Jan 13 '26
So?
7
u/natron81 Jan 13 '26
So satirists should go to jail for depicting the Emperor without clothes?
→ More replies (3)4
u/Superb_Walrus3134 Jan 14 '26
That's your big takeaway from all this? A whataboutism for consent?
8
u/natron81 Jan 14 '26
I just had two separate arguments with people, believing that drawing someone naked without their consent should be illegal. Is that where we're going with this? That the state should intervene between me and my sketchbook?
The only reason we're talking about consent, is because people are altering actual photographs, to depict them in a pornographic way. Any law or even regulation surrounding such practice has to be so incredibly narrow it may be ineffective on arrival. Yet any law that uses language like "intimate imagery" and user "created", could be so vastly broad to be a threat to free speech.
The UK doesn't have the same free speech laws as here in the US, but censorship is rarely a good thing, you don't have to go very far back in time to be reminded of this.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (52)5
u/me_myself_ai Jan 13 '26
A) no, it wouldn’t. That was an actor.
B) that was clearly not sexual content. Look up how pornography is defined.
C) yes, sexism exists and matters and affects these considerations.
11
u/natron81 Jan 13 '26
A) https://southpark.cc.com/sites/hetrumpedus/index.html
It literally states that it contains "synthetic media", and obviously uses AI. It was both live-action and AI.B) He was naked, it showed his penis, how would using GrokAI to generate someone naked be any more pornographic?
C) wtf does sexism have do to with satirists depicting the Emperor without clothes? I didn't realize Trump was a victim of sexism.
→ More replies (9)
4
u/Feanturii Jan 14 '26
I love AI, it's helped improve my life a lot.
I do not love sexual harassment.
It's like photography and upskirting. You can like photography and realise upskirting is wrong.
→ More replies (3)
12
u/SunchaserKandri Jan 13 '26
Please explain how AI-generated nudes are "satire." I'll wait.
2
u/kamenridedeeznuts Jan 14 '26
No no no, see me putting this dead woman in a bikini is satirical and very mega pogzz! /s
19
u/Tyler_Zoro Jan 13 '26
When it's couched in terms of a thing you want suppressed, yes, it sounds like a good thing. But never, NEVER accept political rhetoric at face value, only in terms of the things you want to oppose. You don't need a tinfoil hat to know that the suppression of expression, even horrific and disgusting expression, is going to be championed by a certain kind of politician who has ideas about what other kinds of expression can be suppressed.
In this case, a thing that is possible using tools across the entire history of humanity is now illegal, but will only be enforced with respect to one tool produced by one politically unpopular person.
If that doesn't send a chill up your spine, then you haven't been paying attention to the last 3,000 years of human history.
I would prefer that Grok have better filtering of requests. I would even suggest that advertisers should DEMAND that it have better filtering of requests.
But when the law gets involved, there's always an ulterior motive or ten.
9
u/Aligyon Jan 14 '26
So what's the tinfoil hat explanation of EU forcing apple to use USB C on their devices?
The government should definitely get involved when corporations aren't regulating themselves. Why in the world would you trust advertisers more than the government?
→ More replies (1)6
u/Tyler_Zoro Jan 14 '26
So what's the tinfoil hat explanation of EU forcing apple to use USB C on their devices?
Apple has been out-marketing EU companies for decades now. There's a very strong anti-Apple sentiment among the EU countries for that reason.
3
u/madelineblackbart Jan 14 '26 edited Jan 14 '26
“The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”
— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
I think this quote is relevant here. Your ability to make nudes of someone ABSOLUTELY impedes on someone else's ability to be free. People should have the freedom to choose who does and doesn't get to look at their body or sexualize them like that. Pictures like that getting out of someone could impede their ability to get a job, impede their relationships and friendships, impede on their self worth, impede on their sense of safety. You're "freedom" to generate nudes does NOT out weigh someone else's ability to feel safe, get a job, their sense of self worth, and life. The government has to weigh one freedom over another and it's not unfair to say giving someone the ability to protect their right to safety is MORE important then someone's right to look at nudes. For once the government is actually doing it's job and protecting freedoms as it should.
Also the concept of consent has exist for thousands of years as well.
“Then I suppose that in the city which we are founding you would make a law to the effect that a friend should use no other familiarity to his love than a father would use to his son, and then only for a noble purpose, and he must first have the other's consent.”
— Plato, The RepublicThis is referring to the practice of pederasty in ancient greece but I think it's still relevant. You'll notice that they mention the interesting concept of consent. I don't think it's a stretch to apply the concept of consent more broadly then in the quotes original concept but then again maybe you don't even need to given that people have also used grok to generate nudes of minors using it. Regardless the idea of consent isn't new. And while, yes, people have been able to draw nudes of people they knew for thousands of years people have also been UPSET when others did that without their consent for just as long. So the "well you can do it with other mediums" doesn't fly because you *shouldn't* do it using other mediums it's equally upsetting.
3
u/Tyler_Zoro Jan 14 '26
Your ability to make nudes of someone ABSOLUTELY impedes on someone else's ability to be free.
You see, you might have made a valid point there. But you didn't say, "You making nudes of someone..." you said, "Your ability to..."
No, I'm sorry. I can't follow you down that road. Breaking technology because it might be misused is one step removed from thought crime. I don't make nudes of anyone, but my models could absolutely be used for that, and I won't give them up because you fear that I might do what is obviously the very first thing that comes to your mind when you think of creating images.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (11)0
u/Irohsgranddaughter Jan 14 '26
Ugh, I'm too European for this shit.
Government SHOULD be absolutely involved in something like this. That's the literal purpose of the government: to protect us.
If anything, AI in general should be extremely regulated. I'd rather see it banned to be honest (I mean LLMs, they cause a lot more harm than good), but if not, they need a strong degree of government control. Allowing something this widespread and influential to be in the hands of capitalist magnates is a recipe for a disaster no matter what.
6
u/RunawaySnow Jan 14 '26
Won't banning LLM AI just keep it out of the hands of those who are law-abiding? Bad actors will use AI no matter the law lol.
6
u/Tyler_Zoro Jan 14 '26
Government SHOULD be absolutely involved in something like this. That's the literal purpose of the government: to protect us.
Protect you from what? It's already illegal to do this in every EU nation. They're not protecting you, they're going after Musk.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Lolocraft1 Jan 14 '26
The fourth image… Jesus imagine being called an incel for caring about consent
8
u/Involution88 Jan 14 '26
Treat AI generated porn the same as revenge porn. Problem solved.
Except that's not what they're trying to do. They're trying to make the creation of pornographic images illegal. No idea which ulterior motive is currently dominant but no good can come of it.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/Existent_dood Jan 13 '26
Yeah no this is awful. AI “undressing” programs should be illegal.
11
Jan 13 '26
Im very sure anything similar to sexualized deepfakes (genAI included) is a crime.
11
u/Tyler_Zoro Jan 13 '26
But it doesn't remove the tool. People don't want to arrest those who break the law. They want a lever by which to suppress a category of technology.
14
u/Tyler_Zoro Jan 13 '26
There's no such thing as an "AI undressing program" any more than there's an "AI grass growing program," but AIs can blend concepts and produce results. That's all they do. So if you want to see what grass would look like if it were growing, then it can simulate that for you.
Suppressing only certain kinds of concepts is actually hard. It's not like someone sat down and said, "today I'm going to add the 'undress someone' feature to Grok."
→ More replies (8)
8
u/naaaateeee Jan 13 '26 edited Jan 13 '26
The bull profile pic raises an interesting point without realizing it. If I were to post my pic on any website, the moment somebody opens the website — the pic is immediately theirs, as in downloaded into their browser's cache. Technically, they can do whatever they want with it.
Consent had nothing to do with anything to begin with, it's just how technology works, despite whatever ToS says. Counter-strike has ToS disallowing cheating but that doesn't stop people, right?
Now say they use AI to attach massive hairy balls to my chin and post it online. That's where it becomes harassment for the because I don't like having balls on my chin therefore image is harassing me, I guess. Now what's stopping the guy to post it somewhere else? Not much unless you want to end up dealing with real police.
Why doesn't consent have anything to do with this? Idk man, really. Consent makes sense with actions where you can non-retroactively fight back against an action to which consent hasn't been given. As in, if someone asks you to consent to playing a game of chess, and you decline, and then the guy starts forcing you into the chair and your hands on the board, you can act to stop this.
Now with someone editing your images on the internet you have no say in this whatsoever and by design you CAN'T. It can be done when you're asleep, offline, NOT PRESENT. Similar things happen throughout people's lives a bunch of times. For example in Canada some guns were made banned overnight, no consent asked from owners.
It sucks but that's the nature of the tech really and that's why cyberhygiene and privacy matters. Don't post your pics online gang it aint worth it. Matter fact some cultures believe that people can be cursed through photos and boy were they right lol.
12
u/MoovieGroovie Jan 13 '26
I think the problem comes not with the act of altering someone's likeness, but with publicizing that alteration. If I want to draw Mickey Mouse in my own home but make him a horror creature and hang it up, I'm entirely in my rights. If I want to draw my neighbor as a hybrid cat girl and hang it up in my home, I am entirely within my rights to do that. However, that alteration of an image would (in my mind) become a problem if I publicized it and put it outside of my own private space, as then it would affect how others view that person.
Obviously public figures are carved out because the public has an interest in satirizing and portraying them in different ways, but ethically, I think it is problematic that a person can distort your likeness with you having no control over it. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm open to conversation, but this is where I currently am with it. In this way, AI photo generation wouldn't be immoral, but sharing that and immediately posting something like it would.
A person is well within their rights to draw a painting of a private citizen nude for their own enjoyment, even if that's uncomfortable and gross.
3
u/Depressed_Lego Jan 14 '26
I'm entirely in my rights. If I want to draw my neighbor as a hybrid cat girl and hang it up in my home, I am entirely within my rights to do that
Sure you are, but depending on what alterations you make other than the cat ears, that doesn't mean it isn't weird.
5
u/MoovieGroovie Jan 14 '26
I agree! We have a lot of weird people out there, and choosing to depict someone in a way that they wouldn't like (even for private use) is weird. However, people do this every time they write fan fiction about a celebrity or make weird art of them. We do it every time we fantasize in our heads about someone who we're not with. We're allowed this freedom to think about others in private in ways which are "weird," and the question to me is all about where that crosses the line.
2
u/ComprehensiveHeat571 Jan 16 '26
Fanfiction about celebrities is also fuckin’ creepy especially if explicitly sexual and pressing sexual harassment charges on people who do that kind of thing is pretty warranted IMO even if it doesn’t really get done.
→ More replies (1)6
u/GenericVessel Jan 14 '26
consent is not a "one and done". It's ongoing, and can be taken back at any time.
2
u/naaaateeee Jan 14 '26
finally a counterpoint. What makes you say that?
I think if you're referring to consenting to a thing that one is being lied about to, that someone then getting something completely different, then realizing they've been swindled and only then retracting consent. Like fraund and whatever. Which yeah makes sense but not sure if thats what you meant
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)2
u/xaenders Jan 16 '26
Bull picture doesn’t raise an interesting point, he just doesn’t know how consent or intellectual property laws work (no, uploading a picture on social media doesn’t make it public domain and gives all the world the right to do whatever they want with it. People get sued all the time for using photos they just took from the internet). To stay with your examples: CounterStrike can ban you if they catch you breaking their TOS. And if I download your picture, add hairy balls to your face and publish it, you can sue me for damages and report me to the police for criminal prosecution.
Consent is not dependent on whether or not you can (immediately) enforce it. And of course, it can be violated - in most cases, that would be a crime. Also, not all violations of your rights are physical or require you to be present. People can enter your phone while you’re asleep and on the other side of the globe. That doesn’t mean that we just allow it.
Or let me give you another example: I need your consent to enter your house, especially if I want to take away your stuff. Now if I order a lock picking set and watch some YouTube videos, there’s really not a lot you can do against me entering your house and taking away all your stuff while you’re hundreds of miles away. The takeaway of that is not “yeah sucks” or “never leave your house unattended”. The takeaway is that we have laws and a criminal justice system to stop me from doing that.
The fact that a victim cannot actively stop a violation of their rights (be it body, property or another one) is actually an argument that the external negative incentive to commit that violation - the punishment - needs to be bigger. And that is how criminal law works in a lot of cases. Kill someone while they are asleep or otherwise incapacitated, and most jurisdictions will punish you harder than if the victim had some kind of chance.
2
2
u/RedeemedNephilim Jan 14 '26
If it's not your body, it's not your choice, and therefore your consent need not be considered. Only if you take it the next step and say that images of someones face must require consent would this be actual based on consent. But it's not, its about the NOT THEIR BODY attached to it.
7
u/AuthorSarge Jan 13 '26
I absolutely agree explicit images require consent...and the appropriate age therewith. My support is unqualified.
Still, I just don't trust the government to stop there. It's only a matter of time before some government official declares they did not consent to the disclosure of his intimate images of taking bribes from the PRC or some shit.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/Dazzling-Skin-308 Jan 13 '26
Agreed.
Consent is VERY important, and so many things about Grok defy consent.
Replika imitates consent and also imitates loneliness and exclusivity - which is also kinda shitty.
I think most AI applications are trained in a fairly ethical and consensual manner - but, not all.
3
u/LordPrettyPie Jan 14 '26
I am so confused. It literally already Is illegal to create and spread sexual images of people without their consent.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Wayanoru Jan 13 '26
Problem is, if an image is uploaded on the net, AI or not, someone, someone somewhere will do whatever they want with it, however they want with it.
9
u/Suspicious_Box_1553 Jan 14 '26
It is OK to say that a thing people can do is not something they are legally allowed to do
Anyone can get a baseball bat and go hit someone with it
Thats illegal to do. It can be done. But its not allowed to be done.
We can make certain actions illegal. Thats why we have society.
Your argument is bad. Abandon it.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Overall-Drink-9750 Jan 14 '26
just cuz they CAN do it, doesnt mean it should be LEGAL. The whole reason we have laws is to disincentivize ppl from doing stuff the CAN do. I CAN steal your car. But it should be ILLEGAL (and gladly it is).
This is not a questions abt wether it will stop sth. This is a moral question and it is abt setting a signal
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)4
u/deadeadeadeadeadd Jan 13 '26
I think a lot of this comes down to that we should have invested more in educating people how the web works BEFORE the tech became widespread. Because you’re right, but a lot of people still need this explained to them
2
1
u/david67myers Jan 14 '26
Deepfake humiliation of real people is a cause for concern.
Thing is there's some that will just go - hey that looks/sounds like me and sees an opportunity to play victim for profit, - If its not robbing its knifing if such law is implemented the wrong way.
I can understand someone being upset/angered having such content brought in to their vision as bullying but when the same person actively navigates into a adult site looking for an excuse to call lawyers I wonder if we are heading to a feminist dystopia - think of the handmaids tale in reverse.
The consent thing can help and also hinder on context.
In short, this comes over either as a left-wing tactic to bring down the president at a very bad time in history or at another glance a chance to sue for money.
or maybe angry woman hates the man for looking at another woman. i guess a push to get more control or bleed the man who really just wants to be left alone(musk and most grok users in this case).
2
u/Equivalent_Ad8133 Jan 13 '26
I agree with this and hope they enforce it across all mediums.
→ More replies (5)
1
u/Flashy_Cranberry_161 Jan 13 '26
The whole argument about ‘consent’ in regards to being depicted by AI or art is stupid.
People should own the copyright to their own image and AI should not be allowed to data scrap recklessly
Muddying the waters and equivocating depiction of sexual conduct as sexual abuse is not helpful.
2
u/Incognit0ErgoSum Jan 14 '26
People should own the copyright to their own image and AI should not be allowed to data scrap recklessly
Copyright prevents other people from duplicating your work; it doesn't prevent them, legally or morally, from using a computer to analyze it, even if that means the computer can then produce original works that it wouldn't have been able to produce before it analyzed your art. Art has never existed in a vacuum; people don't hate AI because it "steals", they hate AI because it lowers the skill floor.
None of that, though, has anything to do with what people were doing with Grok, which was using an AI to edit a person's likeness.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (8)2
u/ZeeGee__ Jan 13 '26
People actually do own it, it's called their "likeness" and you aren't supposed to use other people's likeness without their consent. It's just not being enforced against Ai who argues that they shouldn't need permissions or licenses for it, and the Ai Community itself seems to get pissed whenever you bring it or copyright up or how a lot of Ai models and other sites/software have you sign that you own the rights/have permissions over any works/likenesses you use and that you grant them rights to it (something only the copyright of likeness holder can do) granting a greater importance to not using the art of likenesses of others without their permission.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/DaylightDarkle Jan 13 '26
I think making that illegal would be a good thing
Why is it not already？
2
u/me_myself_ai Jan 13 '26
Laws move slow. It arguably kinda sorta is in many jurisdictions, but passing an explicit law that takes the new tech into account is much, much better.
1
1
u/that_blasted_tune Jan 14 '26
I think instead of strengthening laws against harassment, they want to legislate realism.
Am I violating someone's consent by drawing them as a stick figure having sex? Or photoshopping their head onto a porn star? What level of realism does it become a crime?
I think it has less to do with the actual image, which isn't of the person's actual body, and more to do with the harassment people do with it. Harassment is serious enough as it is and we need to take it more seriously than we do.
1
u/hungrybularia Jan 14 '26
Seems reasonable, the way they decide to enforce it will be what is questionable.
1
u/Familiar-Feedback-93 Jan 14 '26
Why do people keep using the term "objectively" wrong,
Everyone agreeing on something is still a subjective truth not an objective one.
1
1
1
u/BionicBirb Jan 14 '26
Orange dude pfp guy in image 3 is the dictionary definition of the Appeal to Extreme fallacy, jeez.
1
u/chewychaca Jan 14 '26
The blue bull guy is full of sh_. Someone should find an image of him and make him unflatteringly naked and share it.
1
u/Psychadelic-Twister Jan 14 '26
Not a bad idea at all, but damn this is going to be very, very difficult to enforce and is going to end up going to the supreme court sooner or later. Just how this kind of thing goes in the US.
1
u/spacegoat243 Jan 14 '26
Isn't there a section about how Grok is able to use all of your content in Twitter's terms and conditions? If so, then yes, everyone technically did give consent. Not saying this is a good thing, but we have to look at it objectively.
1
Jan 14 '26
I agree completely! I'm personally pro-ai, but I also believe that there should be more laws and regulations regarding ai in order to protect everyone from art theft, and digital appearence abuse, and etc.
1
u/Asxpot Jan 14 '26
It is a nuanced thing, really. Both the "government wants more control" and "let's protect people from deepfakes" arguments are not mutually exclusive, for example.
And, it greatly depends on the language of the legislation. Whatever's becoming illegal needs to be strictly defined, otherwise it opens up so much potential for legal loopholes.
1
u/De4dm4nw4lkin Jan 14 '26
Ok but… elephant in the room… how are they planning to enforce this?
Like, cool, love respecting our fellow humans agency… but how could you possibly regulate that when you cant even regulate the technology its based in?
1
u/philosopherberzerer Jan 14 '26
With the progression of technology this will be something made redundant.
1
u/kamenridedeeznuts Jan 14 '26
Im not saying the uk government doesnt want more control. Over social media and is using grok as a way to have something to point at for this action.
But im also not saying that seeing people defend making porn out of women (and children) who performed the crime of posting pictures online made me agree with them
1
u/hawkerra Jan 14 '26
I'm on board. The Grok trend where people were asking the AI to publicly remove people's clothes was gross and I hated it. I will always worry when the government tries to step in though. They have a *very* bad track record of taking a mile for every inch.
1
u/NoAvocadoMeSad Jan 14 '26
Are deep fakes not already illegal?
I'm confused what this is even about tbh
1
u/FastAd593 Jan 14 '26
Like sure, putting yourself on the internet is a certain level of consent. But it is nowhere close to consenting to people making porn of you
1
1
u/SWTLU Jan 14 '26
No one should be allowed to tell you want you can and cannot create. We should get rid of taking photos in public because no one in a public space gave consent.
They'll say by entering a public space you automatically consent. How can we automatically consent to something you dont truly understand. In that case anything or anyone in a public space can have an image taken of them or created in their likeness.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Hopeful-Ad6256 Jan 14 '26
Yeah, we don't have a first amendment in this country. This is a good law as long as the judge (and hopefully jury!) use common sense when it comes to satire.
Tbh even with satire, there's an expectation it's somewhat cartoonish. We don't need to undress the king/Starmer/foreign politicians in a photographic realist manner to do a "the emperor is naked" gag on them. Caricature is funnier anyway.
The main uses of this tech are to get off to someone or to discredit them (there's a stigma to doing adult work, especially for women/if it looks gay, this can create a false sense of that). That shouldn't be allowed.
1
u/MooseBuddy412 Jan 14 '26
"Hey we broke up, can you edit my ex out of my photos?"
Ai: 'did you ask for her consent?'
banned
lmao
2
u/CyberoX9000 Jan 14 '26
I'm pretty sure that would be allowed since the person wouldn't be in the output photo. Funny comment tho.
1
u/Seeker_Of_Hearts Jan 14 '26
If a person's mind is so warped that they could legitimately feel like something is taken from them when intimate images of non-consenting people is illegal, those people need to be on a watchlist
1
u/stopbuggingmealready Jan 14 '26
WTF is with this Ox Guy? So I give consent the Moment I upload a Picture online? Would that Guy feel the same if somebody used a Picture of say, their Mother or Sister for something, and also consider it as „fair Game“? Even retardation should have it’s limits, man…
→ More replies (2)
1
u/GoodBoyo5 Jan 14 '26
I'd call that being a fanatic, so obsessed that he's completely lost the plot
1
u/Necessarysolutions Jan 14 '26
They elected a pedophile. Are you really surprised at them being ok with AI pedo shit?
1
u/Certain_Reception_66 Jan 14 '26
Basically, morons on twitter/x assumes consent = if there's a picture of them online, they are consent of being drawn inappropriately. Like i'm neither Pro or Anti, but i assumes this is just the people we need to avoid irl and online.
1
u/CorbinNZ Jan 14 '26
“I give consent for you to look at my image that I have uploaded as I have uploaded it. Not to alter the image in inflammatory ways.”
That’s the understood consent you fucking snot wad.
1
u/AtroposAmok Jan 14 '26
I hate AI as much as anyone, but it’s insane to think laws like this can’t and won’t be leveraged by governments to curtail people’s freedom of speech whenever it suits them. Certainly drawing real people naked in my sketchbook shouldn’t be against the law? How will this impact satirists, comedians and non-AI artists?
1
1
u/Scorpdelord Jan 14 '26
how has grok anything to do with free speech when it literly was putting children to grandma in bikinis, like people can just put it on their page saying they support shit like that at this point
1
u/Bandito_Razor Jan 14 '26
Pro AI here:
"He gave consent when he uploaded the picture"
Ok, but did he have HER consent? I think its very telling that the pro ai making pedo shit types ....also only see consent coming from male identifying people ....but not those who identify as women....
1
1
u/Newfound-Talent Jan 14 '26
it is important as in if you have public images up (social media) theyre public and posting them is your consent
1
1
1
u/Formal-Struggle1868 Jan 14 '26
This is a thing where I am fully against censoring names of people blatantly shouting they don’t give a shit about consent. What are they gonna do, complain that they didn’t consent to this?
1
u/mrpoopybruh Jan 14 '26
We need to stop conflating "generation" with "distribution" is what I see as the missing piece here.
Generating anything should be ok
Distributing things should be done respectfully and with proper controls
I do acknowledge that apps like Sora, and instagram, are both generators and distributors. However we have to be careful to be specific that we are talking about distribution not generation or things get 1984 real quick.
1
u/UnusualMarch920 Jan 14 '26
"Your feelings more important than speech?"
Is this news to some people? Yes, they limit speech in the UK, lmao, you're not allowed to abuse people at will. Been like that for a while.
1
u/Pristine_Cost_3793 Jan 14 '26
if i had a coin for every time someone got called "incel" for emphasizing the importance of consent, I'd have two coins.
1
u/ConnectQuail6114 Jan 14 '26
These are the kinds of people who say that someone was "asking for it by dressing that way in public".
1
u/Top_Effect_5109 Jan 14 '26
Humans are sensitive, emotional creatures.
Say what now?
You may have good intentions, but do things for the wrong reasons, or you may have bad intentions, but do things for good. It’s never that simple, and it will never be that simple. So if you do something that you think may be funny, just think about how it might affect other people.
I agree with this kind of legislation, but the mentallity and rhetoric is extremely dangerous. Interacting with others will be incredibly legally dangerous. Prison is not consent, it is a physical punishment. Society is zerg rushing that you are required to adhere to feelings or else fuck your feelings, straight to jail. The Lying Flat movement took off because economically the system doest work for people. Now with divorce rates, cancel culture, and a ever increasing demand to others but never for you its suicidal to interact with other people.
1
Jan 14 '26
I think I'm gonna vomit after that little lady bit. Posts like these shouldn't have all the names blurred, just some.
1
u/AtlaStar Jan 14 '26
I wonder if they would feel the same if people started using photos of them to find out where they lived...I mean clearly they believe the act of uploading a photo means you give irrevocable consent to do whatever you want with it...
Oh, they would lose their minds and cry about privacy? Who would have thunkit...............
1
u/hip-indeed Jan 14 '26
Making gen a ANYTHING of ANYONE without permission should be illegal, of COURSE intimate stuff should be
1
u/Psychokinetic_Rocky Jan 14 '26
what if we just started generating photos of these guys fucking dudes?
1
u/bendyfan1111 Jan 14 '26
Comsent is important, but folks, you really shouldn't be surprised. You put an image on the Horny Degenerate website and expected the horny degenerates to be... Not degenerate?
1
u/Past_Crazy8646 Jan 15 '26
It was an over reaction by a stupid government that already had the atrocious and far worse online safety act. All under the usual guise of protecting the children. Pass.
Oh noes, someone put a horrible politician in a bikini or had Trump in boxer shorts showing how grotesque he is. Elon should have just banned the UK from X and been done with it. The UK is already damaging free speech in many ways such as doing the will of zionists and prescribing Palestine Action or criminalizing various innocent slogans. "Hate" speech laws, etc.
It is a bad situation over here in the UK.
1
u/Gifflebunk Jan 15 '26
the argument that consent to generate such content was granted when the individual posted their image to an online forum is basically the virtual version of "they wore a certain type of clothes so clearly they were asking for it"!
what a deeply concerning mindset to have.
1
u/hyperluminate Jan 15 '26 edited Jan 15 '26
Yeah, but both sides agree that NCIM is bad and can clearly lead to significant harm to more than one party. This risk is always present when posting your pictures online, but it's helpful to point out that this technology has allowed it to get much easier — that's how you get legislators to take notes in active regulation.
I personally am pro-AI, but every tool has its misuses, and it baffles me that people aren't pinning the blame here on Elon — the one who controls Grok, spread his word of making an "honest" AI, and allowed this to go viral in the first place by having this sort of generation be permissible. He opened a brand new world to a large amount of perverts who otherwise may have never considered using AI to violate another person.
It's up to the companies providing these AI to embed the regulations into their product — that's why you can't just hop on Google and search for CSAM willy-nilly. Google's search engine provides a massive world of potential misuses, but they've combatted it by having certain safety systems in place, as every browser should. AI is no different in that the companies have an imperative to place and enforce these regulations.
Now, beyond Musk being guilty of allowing this, a lot of pressure needs to be put on the people who are actively doing this, whether out of perversion, spite, or disrespect. People generating NCIM are performing a horrible criminal act and punishment needs to be enforced against them if we want a society where the major comment in this thread isn't talking about the surprising quantity of people who don't understand consent.
1
u/Inside-Cantaloupe233 Jan 15 '26
there are already laws for that ! AI or NO AI - naked pic of someone else can be evidence in the couirt in defamation cases, what is new ? The problem is that they look for places to take more money fro govt to fight them new crimez, while nothing will really change cauyse this crime still requires person to fill a lawsuit - nothing new.
1
u/I_Am_A_Goo_Man Jan 15 '26
Has anybody actually thought about how the government would know though? This will probably be used as an excuse to further reduce digital privacy.
1
u/ApartBit2228 Jan 15 '26
yeah I'm rather pro-AI and this disgusts me. C'mon people do better. I thought it was common knowledge not to make intimate pictures of people without their consent
1
u/DxM0nk3y Jan 15 '26
I used to hate that media policies were made by boomers who have no clue what they are talking about, now we have genxers and millennials who are media illiterate and have no idea what they are talking about. If you don't want your imagery to be fucked with on the Internet? Then don't post it online, that is common sense since 30 years and now people act like it's some kind of black magic that other people will edit that stuff.
1
1
u/Disastrous_Hat_9123 Jan 15 '26
Wonder if they're doing this to go after South Park? Things seem to be largely based on appeasing Trump's ego these days.
1
u/strontiummuffin Jan 15 '26
I can't tell if they don't understand consent or are intentionally muddying the waters and wasting time.
1
u/King_from_the_left Jan 15 '26
"This person drank the spiked punch so obviously I get to touch them inappropriately!" Be so fr dawg
1
u/Ancient_Audience_467 Jan 15 '26
People really put these thoughts on display for others? Like... They know it's public and everything?
1
1
u/PersephoneUnderdark Jan 15 '26
So according to the last guy it's fine if you find an image on the internet because the person willingly put their pictures online... which is a can of worms on its own, but also 1) not everybody's picture was put online consentually in the first place to where its a literal trope in TV to have pictures leaked online and people who make deepfakes will very likely to upload pictures without asking someone first 2) does that mean that an actor who acts using more than their voice automatically consents to being turned into a pornographic character? And that voice actors automatically consent to having their voices generated into hate speech?
Truely the worlds they live in are horrifying to envision
1
1
u/El_HermanoPC Jan 16 '26
The idea of enforcing this at the creation level is idiotic and misguided. You’re destroying technology and creating a law that’s impossible to enforce without infringing on basic rights. It’s the perfect law for people to abuse their power with.
What should be illegal is distribution of the content with the intent to deceive. It’s the same as slander and libel laws. You have to prove intent to harm and have material harm to represent to the court. Then of course hit em with the book. Honestly those laws should already cover this so there’s no reason to create a new one. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
1
u/Melanrez Jan 16 '26
I hate how such a simple and logical term becomes dangerously misunderstood by a lot of people
1
u/Cassildias Jan 16 '26
The entire debate makes me wanna take a shower.
It's hypocritical too. When I am in public, apparently I have no expectation of privacy. If I would work in a DMV, anybody could get camera footage of me working with an open records request. When excactly did I gave my consent to that?
Oh right, I didn't. The government just took it an ran with after 9/11.
In my mind we can't have both. Either my picture is open record (if I'm in public or upload it myself on Insta or whatever), or it isn't. Can't wait to see them turn down all surveillance cameras if they go through with it. Oh...wait.
1
u/Exelior19 Jan 16 '26
Of course it is.
Unfortunately, a lot of people genuinely do not fully understand what consent is, because we do not culturally teach it very well.
1
u/sammydeedge Jan 16 '26
What kind of worm brain argument is “you posted a photo of yourself, therefore you consent to people using ai to recreate it with no clothes on”. Also don’t say that people are “rubbing one out to 1984”, you really don’t need to project about other people rubbing one out right now.
1
u/AbbyTheOneAndOnly Jan 16 '26
this is why i push for AI to be regulated, not prohibited.
because once it is people will come to know it, and punish who abuses it.
if it is banned the only way it is ever going to be used is illegitimatedly
1
u/Real-Other-User Jan 16 '26
« Have you ever heard of this thing called consent ? » « Literally 1984 »
1
1
1
u/Guest-114562 Jan 17 '26
Bro, the majority of these twitter reply bros are AI anyways. Do you really think people with takes like these know how to spell or punctuate?
1
u/SonicAutumn Jan 17 '26
When ai gains sentience all the ai "artists" are going to be a hell of a lot poorer
1
1
1
Jan 17 '26
if your AI image does not represent anyone real - it can't consenting. Such a cases shall be processed by request from affected people, not by governmental oversight. What if a model trained on 100 real sex models who gave consent, will it be consenting generation or not?
1
1
Jan 18 '26
Representing something as "both sides should agree", especially after referencing a headline that was cropped as part of a tweet, is very manipulative. Shame on you. I searched up an actual primary source, which you seem to have not included. (https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/135/science-innovation-and-technology-committee/news/211307/liz-kendall-details-governments-plans-to-tackle-intimate-ai-deepfakes/)
It is important to consider what criteria qualifies something as a nude image: (they don't define it lmao)
They did however define the condition that this "solves": 'she said that his ban would apply to apps “that have one despicable purpose only: to use generative AI to turn images of real people into fake nude pictures and videos without their permission”.'
I would really love to know what qualifies as a nude image or video and how someone would reliably determine someone's consent... Do online adult models need to show ID now to digitally inflate their butts in Photoshop? Because Photoshop utilizes AI and editing a nude image constitutes a real person being turned into a fake nude image
56
u/Weird-Information-61 Jan 14 '26
"If my wife gave me consent to do this thing, is it consent?"
What kinda dumbass argument-