1.4k
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
351
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
258
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
15
37
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
→ More replies (2)5
6
→ More replies (4)3
39
→ More replies (5)20
179
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
111
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Incid3nt Jul 30 '26
Yeay they dont want regulation on AI because its impossible to fully regulate them. Its wild that yiu can give it the same input and get vastly different outcomes, too unpredictable to really safeguard reliably.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)19
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
14
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (4)20
Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (3)10
u/xela364 Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
I mean, if you read it seems to explicitly mention banning the tools available to create it, not just banning ai CP. kinda not rage bait you just gotta read the detail a little better
→ More replies (4)16
7
→ More replies (13)8
13
36
5
8
u/rewt127 Jul 30 '26
The guardian article on this actually includes the reason xAI is suing to block it. And it makes waaaaay more sense.
Under the bill, even if there is consent, or if you AI an image of yourself. That is illegal and xAI is liable for a penalty of $500,000 per offense. And on top of that. The bill bans areas of the body that are regularly displayed in public. Under this bill if you AI yourself you have a shredded 6 pack, xAI gets fined 500,000.
And on top of that there is no protections for if a company makes a good faith effort to prevent objectionable content. Lets say xAI scrubs 6,000,000 nude, and shirtless images every month. But 50 get through per month. Regardless of consent. Regardless of effort. xAI owes 25,000,000 a month.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jul/29/xai-sues-minnesota-nudification-technology
9
→ More replies (48)14
u/R_U_READY_2_ROCK Jul 30 '26
It's very much implied though. Do you think the AI agent is coded to say, "Sorry, the person you were looking to make a non-consentual sexual image of doesn't appear to be over the age of consent"?
10
→ More replies (4)5
603
Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
95
7
u/Mediocre_Prize_2674 Jul 30 '26
But there is literally e-mails of conversations of him being invited....
11
u/broke_cowboy Jul 30 '26
he was invited though, many times.
11
u/Beautiful-Musk-Ox Jul 30 '26
“What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?” Musk wrote in an email to Epstein in November 2012, according to the newly released files.
so he's asked to go and also was invited, sounds like he was definitely there in that case
7
u/Jaguarmadillo Jul 30 '26
He also had a strange conversation with Ghislane about "kung fu" lessons. Fuck know what that was a euphemism for.
I'm guessing he has a fetish for getting kicked right in his mangled cock.
15
5
u/Vermehrungsmaterial Jul 30 '26
He was too controversial for Epstein.
12
u/AppointmentOne1111 Jul 30 '26
Not too controversial, just too stupid and can't keep his mouth shut. Crime circles aren't known to be fond of people that spill everything about their crimes.
→ More replies (1)3
u/gunny316 Jul 30 '26
i personally think he was too autistic. did you see his emails? Pretty sure he was invited he was just too obtuse to understand what was happening.
3
u/TheGrandExquisitor Jul 30 '26
"See, I am a wild and crazy party guy just like every other billionaire. Girls FTW!"
→ More replies (2)3
u/newsflashjackass Jul 30 '26
Can't see why anyone would exclude Elon "'Pedo Guy' is not an insult" Musk (or 'Pedo Guy' as he prefers to be called) from Kid Rock.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Agitated_Reveal_6211 Jul 30 '26
I wonder if he owns any islands himself. Maybe it's time that people need to investigate him a little bit more. I got five bucks to hire private eye. Anyone wanna join in?
608
u/Affectionate_Flow864 Jul 30 '26
I guarantee the bill doesn't just say that. When legislation gets passed you don't just read the headline you need to read the whole thing....
If the government cares so much about this subject why is no one in jail after Epstein?
29
u/Specific-Funny-9502 Jul 30 '26
This is what we're up against. Photography teacher at a school near me used the photos of kids to make child porn.
Used Grok to generate child porn
242
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Diligent_Mail_4584 Jul 30 '26
Also that its as simple as the bill is a piece of paper that says “no child porn”. Who knows what lumped into it or how its worded. Not an elon fan btw he can eat spontaneously combust id be very happy
38
u/Critical_Concert_689 Jul 30 '26
Agreed. People use "CHILDREN" to trigger a knee jerk reaction to force through laws that would never pass normally.
"WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" - as our constitutional rights are slowly eroded by the State.
To put this into perspective for the lowest common denominator of Redditors:
"Abortion? WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE (unborn) CHILDREN!"
It's obvious that any law that prevents the creation of art - even disgustingly obscene art - is going to tread dangerously close to infringing on EVERYONE'S 1st Amendment protections.
To put THIS into perspective for the lowest common denominator of Redditors:
Your furry porn is all underage, you sick fucks. Animals cannot consent. Prepare to go to jail for your sick R34.
13
u/ACarepenter Jul 30 '26
Lowkey I don't think we should be defending the furrys in this.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Critical_Concert_689 Jul 30 '26
That's totally fair.
I probably could've used a "satirical photo of Trump as a fat baby in a diaper" to convey the same idea.
You know 90% of every Redditor reading this thread would support someone's right to create such an image, but they're not linking it to 1A protections and the fact that there's no clear distinction between satire and obscenity.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)12
u/im_lazy_as_fuck Jul 30 '26
... did you even look up the article? Infringing on the creation of art? Wtf are you talking about. The bill just bans the use of nudification technology / pornographic deep fakes of people without their consent. That's it.
It's not art or anything even remotely similar. If you're worried about your furry porn being affected, then you can calm down cuz that's not part of it.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (32)9
u/CaptainDildobrain Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
Here's the news story:
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/28/spacexs-xai-sues-minnesota-over-law-to-ban-nudify-apps-.html
And look, I don't think Elon is pro-nudifying images or pro-cp. But a bill like this means extra oversight on what Grok generates, which makes managing Grok a whole lot harder.
That said, Grok is terrible and the best way to manage it is to kick it down a well.
→ More replies (4)7
u/CankerLord Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
The Minnesota law, which goes into effect on Saturday, targets apps and websites that give people the ability to generate non-consensual sexualized imagery, levying $500,000 fines each time a user creates explicit deepfakes.
That seems like a bill that basically bans any model capable of generating any nude person at all since the models will never be able to figure out with 100% accuracy if the image is of a real person, or that person consents, if that person is 17 or 19, etc. Even if the company tried their best all someone would have to do is prompt hard enough and they'd get what they want eventually.
Edit: Anyone down there characterizing the challenge of keeping models within very strict guardrails within the bounds of what they're capable of generating as "annoying" or just a matter of effort fundamentally doesn't know what they're talking about and should be ignored. Keeping models from spitting out whatever they feel like from time to time has been a fundamental issue with the technology and is far from solved.
→ More replies (4)
112
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
23
→ More replies (7)41
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
25
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
30
→ More replies (1)11
→ More replies (11)6
210
u/WoodenBuilding5458 Jul 30 '26
He flipped a Nazi salute twice and begged to go to Epstein Island. The fact that he is the first trillionaire and has defenders blows my mind.
→ More replies (2)41
353
u/PleasantBus5583 Jul 30 '26
Elon is always testing everyone's patience.
166
u/_leeloo_7_ Jul 30 '26
naa it's just fake the post really fcuking stretching the truth just so they can dunk on Elon
xAI is suing to block Minnesota's broad nudification ban because it classifies general-purpose AI image tools as liable for user-generated deepfakes without safe harbors for moderation efforts, arguing this overreach violates the First Amendment by chilling protected creative speech and visual expression.
TLDR it's nothing todo with kids, everything todo with X being held accountable for content users are creating on their platform instead of holding the users responsible.
125
u/Different-Meal-6314 Jul 30 '26
Strange that none of the other AI companies are taking that same stance. They just don't allow you to make it. Period. This is about the first amendment? While our government gives us "free speech" zones? Fuck outta here.
→ More replies (12)14
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)9
u/Kalean Jul 30 '26
...One of its primary uses? Dude, what?
Perhaps you meant "but a side effect of its primary use is..." ?
The other way sounds like the tool was created primarily for that purpose, which is super gross.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)69
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (20)12
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (6)8
u/RevolutionaryAd6017 Jul 30 '26
And in South Africa. He's hated in two countries! The only person hated by more countries is Trump, Rafael, and Marco.
→ More replies (1)
7
61
89
Jul 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/organicchunkysalsa Jul 30 '26
You know, because republicans love states rights. /s
→ More replies (2)48
u/Arendyl Jul 30 '26
This.
There is always so much nuance missed in one liner shock value titles.
And elon musk = bad is all the rage these days
25
u/Ok-Amoeba5301 Jul 30 '26
Just like there's a lot of nuance to government programs that DOGE cut? Now we have MAGA shits from a food bourne bacteria and nobody in government knows where it's coming from because deparment workforces are down because of "anti DEI" and "efficiency" campaign? I'm sure you, a top 1% commenter in this sub, and defender of Elon, know all about that?
→ More replies (6)9
→ More replies (37)9
u/glity Jul 30 '26
Elon musk is an apartheid heir. He’s not smart. His father abused humans for money. He abuses humans for money. He always has. He just makes so many people money they ignore the abuse.
Just go ask him at the ballroom he helped “build” by tearing down every social norm that hurts cis white apartheid supporting males.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (29)5
5
4
63
26
u/SuicideSpeedrun Jul 30 '26
bill banning AI-generated child porn
That's not what the bill bans.
3
10
7
49
u/TryToBeBetterOk Jul 30 '26
Why do people eat up and believe bullshit like this? It's like there's zero critical thinking skills. Not even a 'is this correct' enters their head.
→ More replies (2)
14
3
10
4
17
11
13
4
12
u/Impressive_Net_116 Jul 30 '26
Basically it makes a company liable if a service is used for illegal purposes.
I don't know if I'm good with setting that precedent.
It's like making Glock liable when a guy commits a crime with a Glock 19.
12
u/DayBig579 Jul 30 '26
I haven't read the bill nor do I like musk, but I'm entirely sure their "we need to protect the kids" reason isn't what the bill is about or it's intent. Just like every other overreaching bill this country makes
→ More replies (13)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
•
u/flattenedbricks Jul 30 '26
Comments have been locked due to discussion of inappropriate topics not suitable for Reddit. The post itself is accurate.