Then you probably shouldn’t waste so much of other people’s time by claiming something didn’t happen if you haven’t even bothered to fucking check.

He very clearly salutes, turns around, and salutes again. Twice in a row, enthusiastically and perfectly executed.

If you haven’t seen this, you didn’t watch the inauguration.

I don’t think you’re on the right track here. There are definitely existing laws in most states regarding ‘revenge porn’, creating sexual media of minors, Photoshop porn, all kinds of things that are very similar to ai generated deep fakes. In some cases ai deepfakes fall under existing laws, but often they don’t. Or, because of how the law is written, they exist in a legal grey area that will be argued in the courts for years.

Nowhere is anyone suggesting that making deepfakes should be prosecuted as rape, that’s just complete nonsense. The question is, where do new laws need to be written, or laws need to be updated to make sure ai porn is treated the same as other forms of illegal use of someone’s likeness to make porn.

Well, you absolutely can because the argument was immediately withdrawn as completely unenforceable, just like this certainly will be.

Well, that is exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases, and almost certainly what’s going to happen here.

That’s not to undercut how shitty a practice it is, it mostly serves to discourage and dissuade people from trying to sue in the first place.

Thanks for the info! I guess that’s ultimately what I’m looking for more about: how much do we know about cellular traffic? Obviously with encryption we can’t just directly read cell signals to find out what’s being sent, so do people just record the volume of data being sent in individual packets and make educated guesses?

It seems plausible to run a simple(non-AI) algorithm to isolate probable conversations and send stripped and compressed audio chunks along with normal data. I assume that’s still probably too hard to hide, but if anyone out there knows of someone that’s looked for this stuff, I’d love to check it out.

It’s almost like they were asking about sources for people looking or something.

If you’re not going to contribute, why are you wasting people’s time?

It’s a reasonable explanation, and what I typically assume to be true. Still, I’m curious about the actual mechanics, and if it potentially could be being done by Google without the larger tech industry being aware of it.

That makes sense, but isn’t it assuming they’re processing data on the device? I would expect them to send raw audio back to be processed by Google ad services. Obviously it wouldn’t work without signal either, but that’s hardly a limitation.

As someone else pointed out, how does the google song recognition work? That’s active without triggering the light indicating audio recording, and is at least processing enough audio data to identify songs.

As someone relatively ignorant about the mechanics of something like this, would it not make more sense that the app would be getting this data from the Android OS, with Google’s knowledge and cooperation?

The place I see the most unsettling ads (that seem to be driven by overheard conversation) tends to be the google feed itself, so it seems reasonable to me that they could be using and selling that information to others as well, and merely disguising how the data were acquired.

Just a heads up, catbox.moe is starting to get blocked by some major ISPs. Verizon is one I’ve run into, catbox links won’t load if I’m using the mobile network.

deleted by creator

Thanks for clarifying, now please refer to the poster’s original statement:

AI doesn’t grok anything. It doesn’t have any capability of understanding at all. It’s a Markov chain on steroids.

The Lego company, since around 1980. It’s been the official name since their creation.

There’s nothing to remember here, the dude just didn’t know what they were called as a kid. They’ve been minifigs since their creation in the late 70s.

Yeah, this one definitely deserves to be unpopular. They’ve always been minifigs, they’ll always be minifigs, you don’t mess with perfection.

Are you seriously complaining about requiring a signature? Why should weed paraphernalia be treated any differently to tobacco?

I guess if you want to be arrested.

Look, I’m not advocating for anything here, I’m not suggesting anyone who’s ever said ‘girl’ should be thrown in prison.

I just pointed out that it’s a specific term used to refer to female children, thus it makes sense that search engines are using it to weed out unwanted searches for child porn. It’s a reasonable step to take on their part, and absolutely doesn’t affect anyone that isn’t looking for CSM. Just use any other word for women. Hell, there are plenty of other derogatory words for women you can use that will still get you tons of results just in case denigrating women is an important part of your searching process.

That’s nice. Also completely pointless since you can’t seem to grasp a simple concept.

I don’t fucking care.

If you don’t want to be confused for a pedo, stop calling women ‘girls’ when searching for porn. It’s not the 90s anymore. This is only going to be more common as the fight against AI CSM escalates.

Nothing mistaken, I just don’t give a rats ass. Using a 20 year old, wildly exploitative porn franchise that went bankrupt after its founder was accused of creating child porn is not exactly a convincing argument that ‘girls’ is a useful term to find porn of adult women.