"Our intent was to provide a useful creative tool and to give people control over whether their public content could be referenced in this way," the company said in a blog post. "We've heard the feedback that this feature missed the mark, so it's no longer available."
Did they really think people would be okay with being automatically opted in for a feature that would allow other people to generate AI content of them (without notifying said person, at that)?
My mom did that shit and I’m still pissed off. I didn’t give her permission to feed my family to the AI machine to produce uncanny valley pictures of us
What’s permissible in every relationship is different and I understand why that could be a real violation of trust. Of course, in general and barring some narrow exceptions, none of us have the authority to tell others what they may do with images of us.
Why does this read like slop generated to defend corporate violation of personal rights?
no ur slop
you say “corporate violation of personal rights” i say “basic journalism” agree to disagree
I dunno, you tell me 🙄 we’re literally talking about a built-in deepfake feature and you’re defending it by calling it basic journalism instead of corporate violation of personal rights.
How is that the same as calling deepfakes “basic journalism”? How is it different?
Of course not, why do you say that?
I dunno, you tell me 🙄 we’re literally talking about a built-in deepfake feature and you’re defending it by calling it basic journalism instead of corporate violation of personal rights.
How is that the same as calling deepfakes “basic journalism”? How is it different?