Except if you continue reading beyond your Quote, it goes on to explain why that actually doesn’t help.

Companies and their legal departments do care though, and that’s where the big money lies for Microsoft when it comes to Windows

Training and fine tuning happens offline for LLMs, it’s not like they continuously learn by interacting with users. Sure, the company behind it might record conversations and use them to further tune the model, but it’s not like these models inherently need that

HTTP is not Google-controlled, you don’t need to replace that in order to build something new without Google

I agree with your first point, but the latter two:

—GPS data that could be stored and extracted from the dealership and sold or given to the government, insurance companies, and law enforcement. —GPS data that could be sent in real time if the car has a cellular connection or hijacks the cellular connection in your phone when you connect it to the car.

Why do you think this is more likely to happen with this new regulation, when most modern cars already have a functioning GPS module for navigation and cellular connection for software updates?

Yeah, it certainly still feels icky, especially since a lot of those materials in all likelihood will still have ended up in the model without the original photo subjects knowing about it or consenting. But that’s at least much better than having a model straight up trained on CSAM, and at least hypothetically, there is a way to make this process entirely “clean”.

There are legit, non-CSAM types of images that would still make these changes apparent, though. Not every picture of a naked child is CSAM. Family photos from the beach, photos in biology textbooks, even comic-style illustrated children’s books will allow inferences about what real humans look like. So no, I don’t think that an image generation model has to be trained on any CSAM in order to be able to produce convincing CSAM.

There’s also this part:

But Johansson’s public statement describes how they tried to shmooze her: they approached her last fall and were given the FO, contacted her agent two days before launch to ask for reconsideration, launched it before they got a response, then yanked it when her lawyers asked them how they made the voice.

Which is still not an admission of guilt, but seems very shady at the very least, if it’s actually what happened.

Except discord is not an ads-based platform? I’ve never seen a third party ad on there

where anyone thinks it’s ok or normal to recommend suicide to people

Except that’s already happening even without it being normalized, there have always been assholes that are gonna tell people to kill themselves, especially if they’ve never seen the person they’re talking to before. I don’t see how this is any different.

Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.

It also wouldn’t have happened if a fucked up system wasn’t withholding actual, reasonable alternatives that the person was clearly asking for. That’s my point. Let’s fix the actual problems, rather than try to silence the symptoms.

…and did you notice how everyone was outraged by that? That incident was not an issue with assisted suicide being available, that was an issue with fucked up systems withholding existing alternatives and a tone-deaf case worker (who is not a doctor) handling impersonal communications. Maybe it’s also an issue with this kind of thing being able to be decided by a government worker instead of medical and psychological professionals. But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn’t have been put into the spotlight like this.

I don’t want to create a future where, “I’ve tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit,” is met with a polite and friendly, “Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?”

Are you for real? This kind of thing is a last resort that nobody is going to just outright suggest unprompted to a suffering person, unless that person asks for it themselves. No matter how “normalized” suicide might become, it’s never gonna be something doctors will want to recommend. That’s just… Why would you even think that’s what’s gonna happen

Maybe we should clarify what a slur is? Because to my knowledge, a slur is a term that has such negative connotations that it is considered offensive and discriminatory against a certain group of people in itself, without any additional context. You simply do not use it unless you want to insult or offend someone from that group. If a term is only offensive based on how it’s used, it’s just a regular insult, not a slur.

So, “can be used as a slur” is not a thing. A word is either a slur, or it isn’t. Neither trans nor cis are slurs at the moment. I’ve never seen trans be used as an insult before. And even cis is almost never meant as a direct insult, merely as a reminder that someone is talking about things they have no lived experience with and should probably check their privilege. Yes, that can be in a demeaning way, but the goal there is not to hurt you, but to make you piss off. It’s an act of self protection. Nobody is seeking cis people out and starting to call them names unless they insert themselves into trans spaces and start talking shit about trans issues. If you’re doing that, and getting told off insults you or hurts your feelings, then, frankly, that’s a you problem.

…yeah, it is. What are you implying?

The prefix cis- is Latin and means on this side of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

Just as “trans-” means on the other side of. It’s literally just the opposite of trans.

Except the email in question is not a newsletter. Companies often use separate mail list services for important product announcements and similar things as well. Obviously there should be a process in place that removes you from these external services too when you delete your account, but I assume this is what broke down in this case

It’s not quite that simple, though. GDPR is only concerned with personally identifiable information. Answers and comments on SO rarely contain that kind of information as long as you delete the username on them, so it’s not technically against GDPR if you keep the contents.

Seems like clients vary wildly in how they interpret this markup. This is how it shows on Sync:

I was thinking of an approach based on cryptographic signatures. If all images that come from a certain AI model are signed with a digital certificate, you can tamper with metadata all you want, you’re not gonna be able to produce the correct signature to add to an image unless you have access to the certificate’s private key. This technology has been around for ages and is used in every web browser and would be pretty simple to implement.

The only weak point with this approach would be that it relies on the private key not being publicly accessible, which makes this a lot harder or maybe even impossible to implement for open source models that anyone can run on their own hardware. But then again, at least for what we’re talking about here, the goal wouldn’t need to be a system covering every model, just one that makes at least a couple models safe to use for this specific purpose.

I guess the more practical question is whether this would be helpful for any other use case. Because if not, I hardly doubt it’s gonna be implemented. Nobody is gonna want the PR nightmare of building a feature with no other purpose than to help pedophiles generate stuff to get off to “safely”, no matter how well intentioned

Yeah but the point is you can’t easily add it to any picture you want (if it’s implemented well), thus providing a way to prove that the pictures were created using AI and no harm has been done to children in their creation. It would be a valid solution to the “easy to hide actual CSAM between AI generated pictures” problem.