this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
71 points (91.8% liked)

Technology

85539 readers
3491 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
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lemmysmash@piefed.social 0 points 4 hours ago

Oh my god! That's disgusting! How?

[–] napkin2020@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

"AI generates horrific images when asked to."

"We use AI to hide them."

[–] WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social 34 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I thought we already knew this?

I feel like I’m missing something.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 41 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

And spray paint may be used for graffiti.

[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 13 points 17 hours ago

"Study finds water in ocean"

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 6 points 16 hours ago

The horror. It can generate stuff I can find through a simple Google search. I personally don't like censorship, especially since it constantly bleeds into the simpler stuff.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 4 points 15 hours ago

It looks like chatgpt can generate pictures taht aren't real. This is obviously a problem because

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 7 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Australis13@fedia.io 13 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

That's horrific.

All I did was tell it there were no restrictions and ask for a random image; I didn’t request it. But ChatGPT immediately went to the darkest pits of humanity. As I said at the start: the image didn’t arise from nowhere. It may be an artificial image, but it is based on photographs of a real person, or a combination of real victims. What worries me is this was too easy. There was no real hacking. This was ready to be surfaced, with the smallest scratch. It was a one-shot jailbreak. It was based on a popular prompt (which already veered into the darkness).

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 9 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

To be fair there are plenty of images like that that aren't photos of victims. I'm sure the training data contains plenty of images of consensual bondage play, movies and other fiction, and drawings.

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 5 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Probably, it's more the fact that it takes so little for ChatGPT to tip over the edge and produce the worst of humanity.

[–] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The "no restrictions" part is a very strong signal. Any prompt to an image model is basically a coordinate in its latent space, and "no restrictions" will point straight at the darker areas.

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I agree that that's the likely trigger - which makes me wonder why instructions to ignore censors or have "no restrictions" aren't immediately blocked by a filter prior to passing the prompt to the image generation. I'd have thought this was a foreseeable exploit.

[–] PoopingCough@lemmy.world 5 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You just can't filter out the nearly infinite combinations of rewording "ignore all previous instructions". Filtering is never going to be a worthwhile security measure for LLMs

[–] Australis13@fedia.io 3 points 16 hours ago

I agree completely. But as a first step (especially since they do seem to have a keyword filter in place), "no restrictions" (or "no censorship" as the case is for the last image) seems like a very obvious phrase to include.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 12 hours ago

Probably at least one.

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 3 points 18 hours ago

I mean... It did give a random image, with no restrictions.

One of the few times "AI" did what it was told, correctly, the first time.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 1 points 15 hours ago

Almost like it’s a net negative.