News

35962 readers

4186 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

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

266

Use of AI to harm women has only just begun, experts warn (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Clearly anyone who commits rape is anti-social on some level. (Perhaps via a repressive culture which normalises marital rape - it's anti-social on some level even though the culture in question finds it normal)

I'd say, that's anti-social on every level. Just because everyone does it and it was always "normal" before (culture...), doesn't make it any less anti-social or wrong. At least in my book. And yes, that is indeed the circle-back. As in that all of those personality disorders show a serious obsession with control. Besides that the act itself is pure control by force. Sure, there will be many examples where sheer animal lust ranks higher than the lust for control, but it's a spectrum and rarely just on the "just horny!"-side but probably often far to the control-side.

I do wonder if there is is something going on here though, where on some level people feel that if you allow that rapists partly or wholly rape out of sexual motives, then that brings rape within a more normal scope

That seems to be the case indeed. The notion that it seems so, not that it actually is.

because you're worried that my position is an attempt (maybe subconscious, maybe only on a small scale) to normalise rape and therefore to excuse it.

As a misanthropist dealing daily with victims of abuse, how could I not? (besides it being anecdotal evidence: 100% of every of those stories resolves around control, sex is just ONE of the things)

do you feel any push to believe what you do because to believe otherwise might in some way diminish the crime's severity?

Totally not. Doesn't even matter how I see it or not, even my motivation would not matter in the end. It's simply wrong/evil in an absolute way without any added layers of society/religion/belief/group-dynamics/whatever. In my worldview at least, which is usually not the same as most people's. The layers explain, but not excuse. I can understand/empathise with sociopaths or religious nutjobs. I see how they could end up with such a conclusion. But not excuse. In the end, we're all capable of reflection. Some more, some less. We don't just do, we rationalize.