this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
266 points (97.2% liked)

News

35962 readers
3018 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

While Grok has introduced belated safeguards to prevent sexualised AI imagery, other tools have far fewer limits

“Since discovering Grok AI, regular porn doesn’t do it for me anymore, it just sounds absurd now,” one enthusiast for the Elon Musk-owned AI chatbot wrote on Reddit. Another agreed: “If I want a really specific person, yes.”

If those who have been horrified by the distribution of sexualised imagery on Grok hoped that last week’s belated safeguards could put the genie back in the bottle, there are many such posts on Reddit and elsewhere that tell a different story.

And while Grok has undoubtedly transformed public understanding of the power of artificial intelligence, it has also pointed to a much wider problem: the growing availability of tools, and means of distribution, that present worldwide regulators with what many view as an impossible task. Even as the UK announces that creating nonconsensual sexual and intimate images will soon be a criminal offence, experts say that the use of AI to harm women has only just begun.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] FishFace@piefed.social -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I waste time replying to you in the vain hope you'd be a better discussion partner than you are and have some reason for believing what you day.

Such an optimistic approach is worth it for the occasions when someone actually backs up what they believe, which unfortunately hasn't panned out with you.

I continue to reply because, optimistically, I believe I might be able to show you how you can contribute positively to a discussion. Whether that's a waste of time is entirely in your power. I look forward to a future reply where you say why someone else is wrong rather than just telling them that they are.

(But I don't hold my breath)

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Nah. It'd be a waste of time since you don't really want a conversation; you want people to agree with you even though you are wrong.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social -3 points 1 month ago

No, I want to know why you disagree with me, so I can see if there's any merit to what you think. This helps me to learn, just like the other person did (they were still an arsehole afterwards but you can't have everything).

Our entire interaction has been me saying something (with reasoning), you disagreeing, and me asking in several different ways for literally any reason for your position. You haven't given any. If from that you've concluded all I want is for "people to agree with me" then you must think that about a lot of people. Makes me wonder why the fuck you bother replying to disagree with all these people you assume only want you to agree with them. I can only guess it's to piss them off.