I'll agree with you on "pitiful" -- this is one of the most embarrassing crashouts I've seen on this site.
You couldn't just acknowledge that it is disinformation and move on with your life. — Mijin

I missed that entire exchange a while back, but agreed. Embarrassing. I was thinking about doing a thread about this, and it’s a good example: “if anything contradicts me, it’s biased.”

So my citations are complete bullshit? YOU are to blame somehow: you don’t read carefully enough, you misunderstood, you’re biased, you’re a bad “interlocutor.” Basically, you’re doing something wrong, not me.

It’s not that common, and not as blatantly obvious as in this example, but it’s common enough to warrant a little reflection.

Please don’t apologise, I welcome the interest.

I thought the issue about Grok should be included here because it has been treated as a free speech issue in the press. It was the lead story in the U.K. yesterday, after Iran.

I’m not sure what to think about that, but I do think it’s a publication issue. Because People are using Grok to alter images with skinny bikinis on X, which are immediately posted on a public forum. Meaning embarrassing pictures of people which are non consensual are being published. This seems to fall foul of the U.K. online safety act.

Interestingly the two main political party’s are in agreement that it should be stopped. While only Elon Musk and Nigel Farage are claiming censureship, or a free speech issue.

Oh, right - cool, thanks. Yeah, I get that and I agree. i think that, though, can be considered a privacy issue. Publication being the trigger, so I totally agree.

I think if you, in the privacy of your own technological world, create AI images of someone public you have a crush on for sexual gratification, as long as that never leaves your technological bubble, I don't see the harm. But making anything of this kind public immediate violates several things that we don't even need to look at digital communications legislation for, i think.