wow. usually don't expect that the people i'm writing with are proudly and openly pro-genocide, my bad. we're talking about over a million people, you know.
oh no, they had to resign from their government jobs and in a year will work in the private sector as consultants for double the salary, those poor souls :'(
prison, fines, mental asylum, whatever would be an actual consequence.
a bit hyperbolic and reactionary from my side, maybe. but you get the gist.
I’m not talking about that. Grok is really strict now about what you are allowed to do with uploaded pictures but there are well known techniques to get it to create x rated realistic video using pictures it generates from scratch.
Anyone can use a range of offline tools and processes to generate nasty images, then blame whoever they want for that image. But who cares about that when there's outrage to spread am I right?
also, using Musk as a source...yeah, sure. as if that's any better than sourcing his ex. if Musk says he's seen none then there are none, after all he never lies and always takes criticism about his companies seriously. good job playing down the situation, classy act. we're not talking about some difference in opinions here, it's about deepfakes including children. remember, it would be an issue without children being involved, that just makes it a magnitude worse.
All you've done is link to a lobby group who ramps up the outrage and fear before asking for a donation towards: "stopping the digital hate".
From your linked study:
"The prompts used to create the images were not analyzed, so the findings do not provide an assessment of how many of the images were created without the consent of the people pictured or altered images which were already sexualized"
If someone uses Photoshop to create revolting images, do we rage against Adobe and the CEO? How about we act like grown-ups and focus on individual responsibility for using AI tools, or any tools?
The point remains. X responded to concerns, tightened the restrictions, and now people are complaining about too much moderation. Mass censorship isn't the path to a safer world. Banning everything isn't the path to a safer world.
Most people don't want to see revolting or inappropriate sexualized images, so they don't search for or prompt that content. That content is officially unwanted by the platform. There's always gray areas. Sometimes artists use the naked human form, and other times artworks may make you uncomfortable. Instead of declaring a moral calamity and linking to lobbyists asking for money, just move on to things more to your taste. Take responsibility for your own online activity. That's what adults do.
maybe try to view this topic with a bit more criticality. i just quickly googled some keywords and am pasting the very first search entry so you get an idea:
> One fake video, which she claims was sent to 21 men, depicted her being gang-raped
i think you're taking this topic lightly because you just assume that it's not a big deal. try to keep in mind that people's mental health and with this their life is at stake.
as with lots of things, the problem is not the tech itself, but the existence of men. it's not all men, but it's usually men. not sure how we'll solve this issue.
i love the cognitive dissonance of some USians in this comment section who believe in both of these statements:
"4chan is a US company operating in the US, sure it serves content to global users but the jurisdiction is the US, we have free speech, ..."
"Sure, Company X is operating in Europe, but it also serves US users so it has to respect our laws and it's warranted for the US to apply pressure and fines."
at least decide for one side of the argument instead of just going the blind patriot way.
It is...but it confirms people's imperialist mindsets. Fine to meddle with and dictate other countries, but how dare them to tell us what to do or not to do.
Threatening to invade Denmark and calling NATO a joke and weak.
A couple of months later blame NATO for not helping in a war you started yourself.
One day some cool new IT tech will come out of Switzerland without it being an ETH Zürich thing. Not saying that that's a bad thing but it's almost comical how one can read such headlines, think "that's probably coming out of ETHZ" and be correct most times. I guess a lot of american IT comes out of MIT, Switzerland is way smaller so it makes sense that there's an even larger bias towards one institute.
Wonder how wide SCION will spread, so far it sounds like it's being used by the Swiss Financial Sector (ugh, even more stereotypical now).
Eh, at least you have the ETH and EPFL. Germany has... TU München and Uni Saarbrücken? I once met a CS postdoc from Uni Saarbrücken who was (and is) doing interesting stuff - he's a professor in Switzerland now.
Wondering what specific field of CS you're referring to, I'm seeing a much wider spread (and Saarbrücken does not even ring a bell). I was attending LMU and I have not kept up with the database stuff the last years from there but I feel like they published a lot of stuff.
I find engineering-type stuff (kernels and hypervisors, programming languages, databases, concurrency, computer graphics, even proof assistants, deep learning now obviously, ...) most important since my impression of many German CS professors is that they would prefer to be mathematicians. There's a ton of interesting theory to be found in sufficiently advanced engineering, but you don't get any of that if you refuse to touch it. IMO, too little engineering is the main disease of German computer science.
so in order for vegans to be legit for you, they not only have to find alternatives for everything, constantly be on the lookout not to accidentally buy or consume products related to animals, no - they also all have to be eating healthy and organic constantly in order not to be phony fakes.
what a weird form of gatekeeping. at least they're using some form of ethics and trying to change the world in a way they're able to.
coming from a non-vegan, btw, even though this shouldn't even be a requirement.
Biden is an anti-abortion Catholic Zionist who wouldn't even do anything (but empty talk) to raise the minimum wage during high inflation. He enabled a genocide so his gods would reward him. I guess he would be a radical commie to the extreme far right. Nixon, JFK, LBJ and Lincoln, for example, signed into law actual left policies (whether they agreed with them or not-- none were lefties).
Words have meaning. Someone a bit left of a Nazi is not on the Left even if they are to the left of the person speaking.
The Democrats are a right-wing party. They spend more energy attacking the left than they do, the Republicans. Look at what they did to the center-left Sanders and their constant lawfare to keep left parties, like the Greens and Peace and Freedom, off the ballot and out of the debates (last election, the Greens spent half their campaign funds fighting these frivolous lawsuits from the Democratic party who seek to subvert democracy [Republicans attack anyone more left/darker than them, through voter suppression and other techniques to also subvert democracy]). There is very little daylight between the two. They serve the same masters, Oligarchs and Israel.
The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.
- Julius Nyerere
Rafah is probably not 100% gone, but it is basically gone. Majority of the people are gone and it's mostly a pile of rubble.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah#/media/File:An_aerial_vi...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/15/world/middlee...
reply