• The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    Ehh, it seems pretty targeted to me, it’s defined to only apply to automatic apps or services, e.g. it specifically exempts manually created images.

    Bans X from allowing grok to make naked pictures of celebrities but doesn’t apply to people using photoshop to do the same.

    • wagesj45@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Subd. 3. Exemption. The prohibitions in subdivision 2 do not apply when the website, application, software, program, or other service requires the technical skill of a user to nudify an image or video.

      I get the idea, but this doesn’t comfort me, because what is “technical skill” here? That seems subjective and will ultimately be up to a court to decide. What constitutes a skill? It’s prompting a skill? Is prompting Photoshop’s AI a skill? Their lasso tool is pretty easy to use. The line isn’t clear, and a clever lawyer, or a judge, or a jury could come down differently on what counts and what doesn’t.

      I get the goal here. But I think we were already covered by the existing law that made distribution of these artificial nudes illegal.

      • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        “Prompting” isn’t a skill, that’s just asking for what you want. Same way as asking a barista for a drink doesn’t require the same level of skill as making it.

        But in general yes that’s how arguments and decision-making works, for any law. These things aren’t mathematical proofs interpreted by computers, they’re people you convince of your point.