I mean, there’s another side to this.

Assume you have exacting control of training data. You give it consensual sexual play, including rough play, bdsm play, and cnc play. We are 100% certain the content is consensual in this hypothetical.

Is the output a grey area, even if it seems like real rape?

Now another hypothetical. A person closes their eyes and imagines raping someone. “Real” rape. Is that a grey area?

Let’s build on that. Let’s say this person is a talented artist, and they draw out their imagined rape scene, which we are 100% certain is a non-consensual scene imagined by the artist. Is this a grey area?

We can build on that further. What if they take the time to animate this scene? Is that a grey area?

When does the above cross into a problem? Is it the AI making something that seems like rape but is built on consensual content? The thought of a person imagining a real rape? The putting of that thought onto a still image? The animating?

Or is it none of them?

This isn’t really even bad communication. This is idiots with a platform screaming FUD for attention.

Yup. But FUD must be pumped out.

This seems overly optimistic. One thing current algorithms can’t do is adapt to previously unknown situations. Yeah, they can potentially model out a solution if they have enough known factors, but they don’t currently have true problem solving capabilities.

Can that change? Absolutely. But the closest we’ve come to is LLMs which essentially download the entirety of the internet to see what the “most average response” would be to any given situation. But give it something it’s truly never seen before and you get pure gibberish that sounds convincing. And even then it’s just bad.

No, you misread. They said shower once. Total. Not per day.