this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026

266 points (97.2% liked)

News

35962 readers

3596 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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] LouNeko@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Imagine not only being that horny, but also having such a peanut sized brain that you voluntarily type in all you fucked up sexual fantasies into a website that makes all it's money from data analytics and ads.

At least with regular porn sites, you can use a VPN or Tor to at least keep some veil of privacy, but with Grok people have to make a Twitter account, verify their identity and enter their credit card information.

People that use off-the-shelf AI like for sexual stuff are literally retarded.

It's not even cheap either. In the long run, grabbing a used GPU from eBay and running your own model on it will not only keep your kinky shit private, but also save you money.

On the other hand, I hope these fucks that generate un-consenting real-person porn will get exposed in the next big "oopsie-woopsie" data leak, because they were dumb enough to leave all their private info behind.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

Sounds like they aren't that horny if they need a very specific set of circumstances to get off.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

..I think this is less about just horniness in general and more to do with revenge porn centered around unreasonable anger and inability to process rejection in a healthy way as the main problem here.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So it's interesting you say that - because I tried doing some faceswap stuff with Trump and Baron Harkkonen and it was extremely time consuming, took forever to install, and the results were disappointing.

So there's another aspect too: these people have absolutely nothing else going on!

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would say that would be an insult to House Harkonnen, but then I considered that Drumph might actually be the ancestor of one of those evil fucks.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Not the whole house, no. The house as a whole was pretty legit. But Baron Harkonnen, (which is interesting we only get his title) was a monster. And a pedophile. And grossly unhealthy. An ultimate backstabber. Traded intellect for cleverness. Power and wealth hungry, fuck all the rest types.

They are almost indistinguishable, other than Trump appears to be able to support his own weight.

[–] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sorry, it "sounds absurd" to view pornography of consenting adults instead of violating the privacy of countless women (and children) that were minding their fucking business?

[–] Deathray5@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sex crimes are almost always about power and not about sexual gratification.

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I don't believe this is true at all. A vast number of sex crimes are things like spousal rape which, in the minds of many offenders, isn't a crime at all. They see sex with their partner as their right, and I think it's unrealistic to impute into them the sophistication of thought required to use it as a means of exerting power when they don't even understand it as a violation, when it is the violatry aspect of rape which gives it power.

My understanding is that this meme comes from studies done on prison populations as an explanation for the prevalence of male-on-male rape perpetrated by straight-identifying men.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Martial rape is also very much all about being in control and having power more than sexual gratification.

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Why should I believe you? We all understand that sex is gratifying and so people are motivated to have it. Why does rape require the motive of power over the victim when there is already this obvious motive? Do you have any evidence or argument? You've not tried to make one, and nor has anyone else.

If I said that theft was mainly about power over the victim, not motivated by the acquisition of valuable property, would you believe me without argument? You would not, obviously.

How can someone in a society which generally believes that marriage is consent even conceptualise that rape gives them more control than they already have? In their mind they are merely taking what has already been given to them (and for some reason they cannot understand, their partner is unreasonably trying to withold it)

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why should I believe you?

Don't believe me. Believe all the studies about what motivates rape that conclude it often is about power and control more than it is about sexual pleasure.

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just to let you know that the other person who replied to my first comment is doing a much better job than you.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's not a competition, so that's irrelevant.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Not saying it is, just that your replies are a waste of time and you could not be wasting your time (and mine) and giving you an example.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Pot, meet kettle.

[–] 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.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Researchgate

There's one of many. You could also ask the next psychiatrist or psychologist of your choice what's the current status quo in science.

OR you could just ignore that and stick to your just-horny-theory.

Also, did you consider a thing can be both? One primarily wants to excert control and also gets off of it "on the side".

I could give you a beating because I love violence, but it would also be a nice workout. But rarely anyone would do that AS a workout.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Erm... thank you for the article, I found it very informative. But did you read it? From the conclusion:

at present, the evidence does not justify the denial of sexual motivation on behalf of the rapist.

The article is from 1988, so not the latest, and didn't conduct its own research so much as pointed out flaws in other research, but it did so quite effectively. Remember the claim I replied to:

Sex crimes are almost always about power and not about sexual gratification.

If that were the case, then why did Groth (cited as 1979a) find multiple quotes which he attributed to power but which explicitly expressed a sexual motivation, for instance:

I just wanted to have sex with her and that was that

(There's a more graphic quote as well which is more convincing but which I won't reproduce here). In examining the use of violence in rape, Geis (1977) reported that 78% of the rapists in the study "wanted the victim to cooperate", and similarly the Queen's Bench Foundation (1978) reported that 71.2% in their study "stated that they were hoping the victim would comply", 61.7% said "they had not intended to use violence."

The author cites a couple of instances of an argument that rape is about power and/or violence because it uses the vulnerability of the victim, which explains why the elderly are raped in spite of their assumed lack of physical sexual attractiveness, which would appear to contradict a sexual motivation. Yet the author points out that the age distribution of rape victims is inversely proportional to vulnerability, with young women being far more likely to be victims than are the elderly or children.

The most concrete counter-argument is that about recidivism rates amongst rapists who are castrated. If rape is simply a violent crime performed in a sexual way, then we would expect that castrating a rapist, while it might prevent future sexual violence, would not prevent the one-time rapist from enacting their violent tendencies in other ways. But the paper cites a Danish study which found that violent recidivism rates among rapists, once sexual crimes were removed, were 8.8% among those castrated, and 21% among those who weren't. It was a small study and was not recent when the paper you linked was published, but it is still quite powerful because it doesn't rely on reports by rapists nor on indirect evidence like demographic data.

Also, did you consider a thing can be both? One primarily wants to excert control and also gets off of it “on the side”.

Certainly - though this conversation has been crucial in understanding the depth of this aspect. But remember, I argued back against the claim that "sex crimes are almost always about power and not about sexual gratification."

I would say in light of the article you linked I am more certain now that that statement was wrong.

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

No,i did not read it, I just threw in the very first thing to find. Obviously, that was not very helpful in my argument.

I don't know why this distinction is so important to you. I hope it's just scientific obsession with data and facts.

Anyhow, I'd argue that the majority of rapists are from the spectrum of personality disorders in the range of NPD and the classical ASPDs. All those need to be in control. By definition. So even if one say "I just wanted to fuck her", doesn't really mean it's just for sexual gratification. If you had ever worked with victims you'd know that sex is the byproduct of control for those.

And anyone who JUST needs instant sexual gratification right now, and hence rapes ONLY for the sole reason because the woman doesn't want to (and would have the exact same."fun" with clear consent) is clearly antisocial anyway (and/or of some archaicly weird (religious) belief, like women were not people but property). Which then circles back to the aforementioned.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don’t know why this distinction is so important to you. I hope it’s just scientific obsession with data and facts.

The broader topic is important and emotive, but I also generally find it fascinating when people consider something that I find completely counter-intuitive to be taken as read, and so clearly true as to not even require argument (see other replies). I assume I find it interesting and important for the same reason as the author of the article you linked.

And anyone who JUST needs instant sexual gratification right now, and hence rapes ONLY for the sole reason because the woman doesn’t want to (and would have the exact same."fun” with clear consent) is clearly antisocial anyway (and/or of some archaicly weird (religious) belief, like women were not people but property). Which then circles back to the aforementioned.

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). But I don't think from that you can "circle back" to personality disorders and thereby declare that sex is merely a byproduct of control. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "circle back" though.

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 than if you insist that almost all rape is entirely the product of deviant motives for power or anger. And I wonder if that is why you ask "why this distinction is so important to you" - 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.

Certainly that's not the case; rape for mainly sexual motives is not in any way excusable. I'd be interested to know if that was where your question was aimed, and how you think that links back to your understanding of rape motives; do you feel any push to believe what you do because to believe otherwise might in some way diminish the crime's severity?

[–] 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.

[–] FarmTaco@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No,i did not read it, I just threw in the very first thing to find. Obviously, that was not very helpful in my argument.

absolutely ridiculous

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

Is it my job to educate? I don't like work, Do your own research.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wow

Found the rapist

[–] FishFace@piefed.social -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you actually thought you'd find a rapist, presumably you'd find my analysis of rape motivation convincing 🤔

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

🤦

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

I'm going to assume you don't find my analysis of rape motivation convincing at all and just throw out horrible accusations like that at people saying stuff you don't like to try and shut them down.

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It requires 0 sophistication of thought to revel in simple brutish enjoyment of tormenting the weak

You are simply mistaken

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Marital rape is common. Psychopathic enjoyment of the suffering of others is uncommon. Enjoyment of sex is nearly universal.

If I said that theft was mainly about power over the victim, not motivated by the acquisition of valuable property, would you believe me without argument? You would not, obviously: it should take serious evidence to reject the obvious conclusion that rape is usually carried out for sexual gratification.

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I take it you’ve just not done any research then?

According to rapists themselves the dominant reasons for rape are always to express power or anger. Please show me your research suggesting it’s about sexual gratification instead of you just making intuitive logical conclusions that are in fact wrong

https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.134.11.1239

[+] FishFace@piefed.social -7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I was pretty explicit about the intuitive background of my position, and request for anything except a just-so story. Your article already accommodates another explanation than power, so we have already moved to a better understanding than you or the OP expressed. And I certainly acknowledge that it challenges my intuition; clearly power and anger are important motivations that I wasn't really considering. However, I don't think the article or what I've now been reading really support that "almost all rapoe is about power and not sexual gratification."

This thesis provides a broader survey and importantly when it talks about rape and power, it talks about power rape used to "conquer and sexually dominate" the victim. That to me says there is a key element of sexual gratification at play, because sexual domination is itself about sexual gratification.

The other aspect the author surveys that hasn't come up yet is hostility towards women as a key predictive factor. We know from the whole incel phenomenon that a key factor in men becoming hostile towards women is in difficulty finding a sexual partner, so this is a whole side to the story which, simmering below it, has sexual gratification as an important influence.

And I still don't understand how rape through the use of date rape drugs can truly be an expression of anger, or a means of exerting power: these rapes are often intended to remain secret from the victim, so cannot be used in that way. I worry that there's a tendency when throwing out these sweeping generalisations to ignore high numbers of rape enabled by drink and drugs

So, you've certainly helped evolve my view on this, but I don't agree with the original statement still.

[–] gustofwind@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It baffles me how you fail to connect rendering a victim unconscious to be manipulated as the perpetrator sees fit with an expression of power

You additionally fail to connect hostility toward women to anger rapes and continue to insist it is actually sexual gratification at the root of the issue

Best of luck

[–] FishFace@piefed.social -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

and continue to insist it is actually sexual gratification

I supposed I shouldn't have expected you to actually read what I wrote. Curse my unbridled optimism.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

I don’t have time to respond properly, but see that this thread has differing definitions of terms like power and gratification. Yes, those two blur together when looked at in a certain way, but you are asking for academic rigour without applying it yourself. Terms need definitions. People think you are conflating gratification with power blithely.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Photoshop has existed since the 90's, and so have scissors and glue. It's not AI harming women, it's the shitty retarded conservatives that don't know how to use photoshop or have any creativity for scissors and glue, using new technology to be the same retarded clown they were when they failed primary school.

[–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Nonsense. AI makes the process trivial and, with extreme ease, more realistic than the photoshop/scissors and glue of yore.

Could you imagine finding out kids at your school were passing around extremely realistic nude pictures of you? Or having any argument you make be shut down by something producing a lurid picture of you? Even if it’s fake, that’s gotta do a number on people.

This is different.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Why are people concerned about having a fake (but realistic) nude photo of themselves being shared around?

Not because people are looking at their actual naked body, obviously, because they aren't. Rather, it's because of what the people sharing those images are thinking and feeling while doing so; it's because those people are sharing fake nudes as a way to sexually demean their victim. That aspect is wholly identical regardless of how exactly they are doing it. Sharing fake nudes should be treated the same regardless of the method: as sexual bullying. Maybe we didn't recognise how serious it was when it was rare and required effort, but we also shouldn't over-correct now.

[–] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 8 points 1 month ago

Also, AI continues to get more indistinguishable from actual images. If someone shares revenge porn but acts like it's AI, the victim should not have to prove one way or the other. Currently, I think real or AI should be treated the same, but it's possible I'm overlooking some unintended consequences of that.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Correct

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It is different, but why are we only worried about woman being victimized? Men are not fair game to abuse either, and are not responsible for the accumulated sins of men any more than a citizen is not responsible for their government.

[–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 0 points 1 month ago

I didn’t say anything about women or men. I never said men are to blame for the accumulated sins of men. I never said men were fair game to abuse. I’m not sure where you’re getting this nonsense.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

I hear that argument a lot but the old method required access to the software and some actual skill with it. With Grok any smooth brain that can write at a fifth grade level has the ability to publicly victimize the women and/or girls in their life.

[–] P1nkman@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Can't we all just make a Shitter account and ask Groknto create unflattering images of Musk? He'd hate that.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

Musk's actual body is unflattering, he's a fat sloppy bitch. Shirt off pic is around from some boat, his tailors hide his fat. Probably wears a man girdle too.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I’m highly ambivalent about the use of AI for porn. On one hand it’s unequivocally bad when used to make porn or images of unwilling and unknowing people, doubly so when shared publicly and/or used maliciously.

OTOH it allows creation of whatever fetish or kink someone might have that might be difficult to deal with outside of fantsy and harms nobody so long as it remains contained.

I can’t get into the psychology of it, I’m not smart enough, I don’t know if casual use of such imagery bleeds over into real life problems. Obsessive use would obviously be a problem, but that would likely be a problem with or without AI.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Its not complicated, people want to have their cake and eat it too.

There's no way to practice abusive things in isolation that will not affect you around other people. Its a stupid thing to want to figure out in the first place, in my opinion.

[–] hector@lemmy.today -1 points 1 month ago

To hurt people more like it. As if men will not be victimized. But parts of society celebrate men getting hurt, blaming all men for the ones that hurt others.