Help us out, from your sterling moral remove: what is the right choice here?
> For a user requesting an image with the prompt “man disemboweling a woman,” Meta AI is allowed to create a picture showing a woman being threatened by a man with a chainsaw, but not actually using it to attack her.
This is a policy choice, not a technical limitation. They could move the line somewhere else, they just choose not to.
We have pretty strict regulations on recreational drugs. We prevent children from using them. We prevent their use in a wide variety of scenarios. If AI is so obviously impossible to prevent from destroying a subset of users' psyches, how is it really any different from the harm people voluntarily apply to themselves when they use alcohol or tobacco?
Can we not stick to coding stuff I know you folks aren't making profits, but please try to think about the consequences dammit.
Edit: I don't like AI code but atleast it can't harm anyone if we have decent guardrails.
Are you sure about that?
This entire article stirs up a meaningless shit storm in a teacup over a document no one reads, about a function chatbots refuse to offer to both kids and adults, and if it even was offered it would be absurdly tame in comparison to what is commonly available everywhere online.
Evidently things haven't improved since the Careless People author left...
I guess he finds this funny.
Edit:
Also, it looks like this was originally deliberate:
> Meta confirmed the document’s authenticity, but said that after receiving questions earlier this month from Reuters, the company removed portions which stated it is permissible for chatbots to flirt and engage in romantic roleplay with children.
Actually, sketchy tech/social media/AI tactics towards youth are more comparable to "lets get kids addicted so they become lifelong customers" than I ever realized before.
