this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2026
180 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

86249 readers
3583 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] firmaments@lemmy.blahaj.zone 48 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Did they really think people would be okay with being automatically opted in for a feature that would allow other people to generate AI content of them (without notifying said person, at that)?

[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's unbelievable what people have already allowed, why not go for it if you're meta?

[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

In this case, it seems like the feature was unpopular as well as costing them money to operate. They can still feed all that same data into AI without the feature present.

[–] firmaments@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 day ago

I know, I know… it just makes me sad seeing that they leverage tech-illiteracy to try to pass things like that. I wish people would tell them to fuck off but I think we all know too well that it’s not going to happen :(

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My mom did that shit and I'm still pissed off. I didn't give her permission to feed my family to the AI machine to produce uncanny valley pictures of us

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 16 hours ago

How does it feel knowing your soul is trapped in a Meta server?

Someday your body will return to dust, and your soul will still be languishing without any legs in their knock-off Second Life.

Sorry, bro.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What's permissible in every relationship is different and I understand why that could be a real violation of trust. Of course, in general and barring some narrow exceptions, none of us have the authority to tell others what they may do with images of us.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Why does this read like slop generated to defend corporate violation of personal rights?

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

no ur slop

you say "corporate violation of personal rights" i say "basic journalism" agree to disagree

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

no ur slop

I didn't know they trained their models on playground insult patterns

you say "corporate violation of personal rights" i say "basic journalism"

There is nothing journalistic to the way Meta, Grok and their ilk handle your pictures, nor about a family member disrespecting your wishes not to have them uploaded there.

In general, your right to control what is done with your likeness should be the base assumption, to which some forms of journalistic usage can be argued to be an exception. Even more than that, it should be expectable of family to honour your wishes, no matter whether they understand or agree with your reasoning. My mom likes to isolate herself from news about current events because of all the negativity, which I find deeply irresponsible, but I don't blast her with them out of a fundamental human respect for her wishes.

I try to act in such a way that the reasoning behind my actions could be made law and I would agree with it. One such lawn would then be not to put your own enjoyment over other people's comfort.

agree to disagree

I don't think that sentiment applies to discussions about human rights.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

So you're going to insult me and my writing to my face for apparently no reason except that you get off on it, and then when I call you out on it, you're going to act like I'm the child. You know what? Fuck off, we're done. I'm not an AI or your mom that you can just take your shit out on and then carry on like nothing happened. Get fucked.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 5 hours ago

So you're going to insult me and my writing to my face for apparently no reason except that you get off on it

No, it just sounded like a pro-AI talking point, with the kind of affirmative "you are absolutely right" leading into a general anti-personal-rights statement of the sort an LLM might generate.

when I call you out on it, you're going to act like I'm the child.

"No u" is hardly a callout. It's literally a child's reaction to criticism, attempting to reflect it rather than engage. At least I made an effort to form sentences and arguments, have a conversation, you know?

I'm not an AI or your mom that you can just take your shit out on

I avoid interacting with AI if I can help it (and if I genuinely thought you're a bot, I wouldn't even have replied). I also don't take shit out on my mom, because why the hell would I? Frankly, I'm concerned that it's a thought that occurred to you.

I hope your mom is doing well. And I hope she's not uploading your images to the slopmachine.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Producing deepfakes is "basic journalism" to you?

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Of course not, why do you say that?

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 4 hours ago

Did they really think people would be okay with being automatically opted in for a feature that would allow other people to generate AI content of them (without notifying said person, at that)?

My mom did that shit and I'm still pissed off. I didn't give her permission to feed my family to the AI machine to produce uncanny valley pictures of us

What's permissible in every relationship is different and I understand why that could be a real violation of trust. Of course, in general and barring some narrow exceptions, none of us have the authority to tell others what they may do with images of us.

Why does this read like slop generated to defend corporate violation of personal rights?

no ur slop

you say "corporate violation of personal rights" i say "basic journalism" agree to disagree

I dunno, you tell me 🙄 we're literally talking about a built-in deepfake feature and you're defending it by calling it basic journalism instead of corporate violation of personal rights.

How is that the same as calling deepfakes "basic journalism"? How is it different?