I have had my fair share of fun with AI. And I consider myself a free speech absolutist. But I think normalizing these types of edits is bad for society. Bikinis is just the tip of the ice berg. You can literally edit anyone you want into a hardcore porn video. Should it be illegal? Probably not. But corporations should be held to a higher standard... and maybe POSTING such things without consent should be illegal. It's tricky.
I haven't seen videos or images of fake pornographic material of celebrities nor do I have the desire to. Does that make sense? It doesn't matter if they exist or they look real, I don't care to watch them. Most people don't.
That's an 80 IQ take. And you don't understand twitter. People are able to activate the bot on your post or any post by just pinging it. Now that wholesome picture of your wife or daughter at church has been instantly changed to her in a bikini for all to see. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. It's a real thing that is happening.
How is that any different than someone saying your wife is a whore and your daughter likes nigger dicks? If anything, it makes these accusation less credible because fakes would be common place. No one would believe them.
My wife or daughter aren't famous so I don't think anyone would bother. If they did I'd ignore it. On the contrary, if the use was limited then deep fakes would be more believable. It would actually have the opposite effect of what you claim.
Also, your 80 iq comment is ad hominem. You're proposing only the government or a select few (Mossad) and criminals have access to deep fakes, which makes me think you're faggy gun grabber, too. How is that for ad hominem, at least this one is more relevant.
You're proposing only the government or a select few (Mossad) and criminals have access to deep fakes,
You must have less than 80 IQ because I never said that.
Should it be illegal? Probably not. But corporations should be held to a higher standard... and maybe POSTING such things without consent should be illegal.
I don't enjoy arguing with you because you're clearly mentally challenged. If you want to limit something, you're going to have to enforce that somehow. Which is probably going to be law. Oh oh! I know, since you're so good at this... you're going to write them annoying and faggy comments like you're doing to me, when someone disagrees with you, like a little twerpy bitch boy. You'll ANNOY them til they stop.
REGARDLESS of which method you use to do that, the mere fact of making the technology less accessible has the effect of making the limited illegitimate instances of it more believable.
All I did was repeat myself because I can't simplify it any further for you. I'm sorry I can't use simpler and smaller words for you to understand it. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. I'm stopping here because this is pointless. Go ahead and reply... write me an essay, twerp.
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 5 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 16:01:53 ago (+5/-0)
Both Australia and the UK govts are seriously considering banning X because of the bikini pics of Albo and Starmer.
Although it's likely more than that - Albo and Starmer are constantly mocked in a number of ways on X. Grok just provided a new level of mockery.
[ + ] Niggly_Puff
[ - ] Niggly_Puff [op] 3 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 16:16:15 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 3 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 16:21:48 ago (+3/-0)
However that is not what Starmer and Albo are upset about. They're taking offence personally.
Musk has said he's working on Grok to stop people asking the AI to undress people.
[ + ] Wahaha
[ - ] Wahaha 2 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 16:41:39 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Niggly_Puff
[ - ] Niggly_Puff [op] 2 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 16:54:29 ago (+2/-0)
Good point. That is hard to argue against.
[ + ] hylo
[ - ] hylo 1 point 1 weekJan 10, 2026 23:06:32 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Niggly_Puff
[ - ] Niggly_Puff [op] 0 points 1 weekJan 10, 2026 23:10:56 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] hylo
[ - ] hylo 0 points 1 weekJan 11, 2026 00:02:52 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Niggly_Puff
[ - ] Niggly_Puff [op] -2 points 1 weekJan 11, 2026 00:17:57 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] hylo
[ - ] hylo 0 points 1 weekJan 11, 2026 00:27:29 ago (+1/-1)
My wife or daughter aren't famous so I don't think anyone would bother. If they did I'd ignore it. On the contrary, if the use was limited then deep fakes would be more believable. It would actually have the opposite effect of what you claim.
Also, your 80 iq comment is ad hominem. You're proposing only the government or a select few (Mossad) and criminals have access to deep fakes, which makes me think you're faggy gun grabber, too. How is that for ad hominem, at least this one is more relevant.
Go fuck yourself.
[ + ] Niggly_Puff
[ - ] Niggly_Puff [op] -2 points 1 weekJan 11, 2026 00:30:11 ago (+0/-2)
You must have less than 80 IQ because I never said that.
Reading comprehension much?
[ + ] hylo
[ - ] hylo 0 points 1 weekJan 11, 2026 00:43:50 ago (+1/-1)
Work with me here, shithead...
I don't enjoy arguing with you because you're clearly mentally challenged. If you want to limit something, you're going to have to enforce that somehow. Which is probably going to be law. Oh oh! I know, since you're so good at this... you're going to write them annoying and faggy comments like you're doing to me, when someone disagrees with you, like a little twerpy bitch boy. You'll ANNOY them til they stop.
REGARDLESS of which method you use to do that, the mere fact of making the technology less accessible has the effect of making the limited illegitimate instances of it more believable.
All I did was repeat myself because I can't simplify it any further for you. I'm sorry I can't use simpler and smaller words for you to understand it. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you. I'm stopping here because this is pointless. Go ahead and reply... write me an essay, twerp.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 5 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 14:15:45 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 5 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 15:59:03 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] con77
[ - ] con77 3 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 16:33:36 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] fnbs
[ - ] fnbs 2 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 19:02:21 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] BulletStopper
[ - ] BulletStopper 2 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 17:54:44 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Peleg
[ - ] Peleg 1 point 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 18:30:50 ago (+1/-0)
Now I need some eye bleach!
[ + ] glooper
[ - ] glooper 2 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 14:57:51 ago (+3/-1)
Point in fact, only 33 countries on the planet of Sol 3, out of the 198, actually have "free speech" codified.
[ + ] dulcima
[ - ] dulcima 5 points 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 16:03:50 ago (+5/-0)
Both our countries are on the point of an X ban.
[ + ] Ragnar
[ - ] Ragnar 1 point 1 weekJan 10, 2026 23:52:31 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 1 point 1 weekJan 10, 2026 20:42:56 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Rob3122
[ - ] Rob3122 1 point 2 weeksJan 10, 2026 14:57:15 ago (+2/-1)