r/technology • u/ArgentineBeauty • 21h ago
Business xAI loses second bid to block Minnesota's AI nudify-app ban
https://www.techspot.com/news/113760-xai-loses-legal-battle-against-minnesota-nudification-law.html•
u/Endles5Earth 16h ago
2nd to last sentence in the article states that xAI doesn’t allow nudification without consent. Great! Make them prove it.
There is no way in hell that they can prove consent was requested and given from all the content moving through there. They set that rule and claim it, when they are proven to be lying in legal doc about it they should be fined as the statute dictates.
•
u/No_Accountant3232 16h ago
Also are they seriously going to make the claim that CSAM is on there with consent? Whose?
•
u/Endles5Earth 16h ago
Well they claim to have suspended over 50k accounts and filed thousands of reports on it, which has led to 244 arrests.
It seems they somewhat try to limit csam producers. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the content is consented to
•
u/SoTiredYouDig 15h ago
They claim, but are those claims substantiated?
•
u/Endles5Earth 15h ago
Who knows. No more details provided but I think they should be compelled to prove any claim they make like this. Lawsuits are good for that
•
u/SoTiredYouDig 15h ago
True. I did a quick search, and found that when xAI started making reports, they left out salient details like IP addresses, which actually halted arrests.
•
u/mouse9001 18h ago
Grok = AI for nazis, creeps, and pedophiles.
•
u/SaplingSequoia 17h ago
All AI is for nazis, creeps, and pedophiles
•
u/Julius__PleaseHer 17h ago
Even the ones doing science and trying to cure cancer and things?
•
u/FiveOhFive91 16h ago
Especially those ones /s
For real though, those are the ones I'm excited for.
•
u/Ok_Confusion4764 5h ago
For real... I consider myself anti-AI for a myriad of reasons, but narrow AI tooling to improve people's chances of surviving cancer? Anyone arguing against that needs a reality check.
•
17h ago
[deleted]
•
u/Julius__PleaseHer 17h ago
Yeah humans will, using Ai as a tool to greatly accelerate scientific advancement. LLMs are not the only Ai that exist. Some of them are fantastic tools that will help us achieve a ton so much faster than before. This whole blanket "Ai bad" argument is going to age poorly I think.
•
u/RetroZelda 17h ago
its sad to think people dumb enough to think AI is just art are able to vote
•
u/trapph0use 16h ago
It’s sad to think that people are dumb enough to think billionaires have their best interests at heart. Enjoy the leopard eating your face I’m sure it’s hungry.
•
u/RetroZelda 16h ago
open weight models exist and are both easier and cheaper to run for 95% of people. please research before making stupid comments
•
•
u/CackleandGrin 11h ago
What's a couple of them? I'd like to save this post for when they are inevitably bought out or otherwise made unusable.
•
•
•
u/ithinkitslupis 19h ago edited 6h ago
The law probably does violate the 1st amendment, I'd expect it to eventually be struck down and for Minnesota to revise it in a way that works around 1A better.
edit:
Wow a lot of downvotes from people who clearly don't understand how the 1st amendment actually works. I'm not in favor of nudify apps just to be clear, I'm only giving some insight on how the supreme court has historically ruled on these issues. Burying your head in the sand about this law's chances just because you wish there were even stronger regulations against deepfakes isn't going to change reality.
This Minnesota Law doesn't apply only to apps designed to nudify, but also to apps with separate legitimate use. Like trying to ban microsoft word because you could write a ransom note on it.
Further it doesn't exclude consensual imagery and includes male breast as part of the forbidden content which typically isn't seen as obscene. So if you're a man in Minnesota and you manage to get google gemini to generate a picture of yourself in a swimsuit with your chest exposed (that you consented to by asking for it yourself) you can technically report them and get them fined... that's how the law is written.
Between section 230 and 1A it seems almost impossible it will hold up as is.
•
u/anon74903 18h ago
Does a law against child porn violate the first amendment?
•
u/ithinkitslupis 18h ago edited 7h ago
No, the Supreme Court has already ruled that CSAM is not protected speech, New York v. Ferber (1982). If the Minnesota law just included deepfake images depicting children it'd stand a much better chance at holding up.
As it's written making it illegal for an adult male to generate a picture of himself topless likely does violate 1A in a pretty clear cut way. So the law will probably get struck down and Minnesota will have to revise it to something more narrow that doesn't step on landmines like that, as said above.
•
u/mparkc 18h ago
Lol people are crazy, but tbf I think it was a federal judge who ruled on it, not the supreme court. But either way they ruled that generating csam with AI is protected by the first amendment. It believe that ruled that way because of a prior ruling about making drawings of csam was found legal, so they had to defer to that ruling. They weren’t happy about it, and were suggesting laws being passed to correct the issue. I’m not saying that I agree with that ruling, as AI is trained off of real images, unlike drawings, but it did happen.
•
u/ithinkitslupis 18h ago
Separate law. That's a Wisconsin man charged with CSAM possession. This is a Minnesota law about AI tools that could possibly be used to generate nude deepfakes, even if they have a separate legitimate use or it's a consenting image etc.
But yes that's also one being kicked back up the ladder probably to the Supreme Court. I'd say that has a better chance of them overturning the decision and making AI CSAM illegal than this Minnesota law holding up at least.
•
u/GetMeASierraMist 18h ago
why do you think this violates the first amendment? if I had real nudes of someone, would it being illegal to share those also be a violation of the first amendment? just seems like a bit of a creep stance to take under the guise of patriotism
•
u/ithinkitslupis 18h ago edited 7h ago
I edited to be more clear, because I'm not sure what people are misunderstanding here.
Sharing nonconsensual deepfakes is already illegal under the Take It Down Act. This is coming after tooling, even if it has a separate legitimate use. I'm not taking a patriotic creep stance, it's just not likely to hold up against the first amendment. I'm in favor of nudify apps getting sued out of existence and there probably are some better worded laws that could help accomplish that goal.
•
u/GetMeASierraMist 17h ago
You stated (now removed) this was a violation of the first amendment, which it isn't. it may be redundant, but calling it a violation of the first amendment is disgusting
•
u/ithinkitslupis 17h ago
It is likely a violation of the 1st amendment. The government may not suppress lawful speech as a means to suppress unlawful speech is just generally how the court has ruled on these things. So a law that would punish an image gen tool if a man manages to generate a consensual image of himself shirtless is a pretty clear example of it violating that line.
There are more 1A-grey area revisions that will probably come after but I can't see this one holding up.
•
u/CounselorGowron 12h ago
Nudification isn’t speech.
•
u/ithinkitslupis 8h ago edited 8h ago
Unfortunately in this case, it probably is. Speech doesn't solely mean utterances, all forms of digital media are included.
A law that forbids distributing AI generated non-consensual nude imagery is almost certainly constitutional. That is the Take It Down Act.
A law that forbids creating AI generated non-consensual nude imagery might also be constitutional, it would be up to the supreme court and they've made rulings in the past to limit speech directly in the interest of protecting victims.
A law that forbids AI generation of consensual nude imagery even without intent to distribute almost certainly will not be constitutional, because that would be considered free speech. Besides the fact that a shirtless man is nowhere near where the modern judgement of obscenity would fall. The current implementation of Minnesota's law clearly overreaches.
•
u/femboyisbestboy 18h ago
Yeah imma make AI porn of you and your family. Let's see how you like it or is that different, because you never thought it could be used against you?
Do you have children? Now there is AI CSAM of them as that is legal in America right now.
•
u/ithinkitslupis 18h ago
I am already against non consensual nude imagery of all sorts, so no, why would I like that? I'd also try to see you prosecuted under the Take It Down Act if I found evidence that you did. That's already the federal law and likely 1A compliant.
•
u/deejaymc 14h ago
The take it down act reads super weak compared to what Minnesota wants to enforce. We need more protection not less n
•
u/ithinkitslupis 10h ago
The Take It Down act is specifically worded to not violate 1A protections, which is kind of the point.
Minnesota wrote a law that does some good things but that's going to be pretty useless when it inevitably gets struck down.
There are other grey areas that could hurt nudification providers and be much more likely to hold up, like 'you need a license to run an image gen tool that has training about Take It Down Laws", "you need to age verify to generate any form of nudity and show proof of consent if it depicts a real person", "you are disallowed from advertising any form of nudification features", etc.
•
u/femboyisbestboy 17h ago
Haven't you heard? It's fully legal now in America
Be happy atleast one state is trying to fight Musk and his epstein friends.
•
u/thegreatdivorce 17h ago
I dare you to make any sort of coherent argument without lazy shitty logical fallacies. IMMA wait.
•
u/femboyisbestboy 17h ago
This is the fight that is being fought right now. America has made the decision that AI CSAM is legal and I think everyone just needs to remember that it can be used against you.
I can ask Grok to make Musk suck Trumps small orange cock and legally I did nothing wrong. Which is ofc weird as that clearly shouldn't be legal for many many reasons
•
u/malianx 16h ago
When did 18 U.S.C. § 2252 and § 2252A get struck down?
•
u/femboyisbestboy 16h ago
Both actually haven't been struck down
The issue is that the the Epstein class is allowed to use AI for it as that technically doesn't fall under these laws which is weird as computer generated CSAM is forbidden.
The Supreme Court is filled with traitors to America bought by Trump and co i guess
•
u/NegativeYou3758 18h ago
Like trying to ban microsoft word because you could write a ransom note on it.
Oh look, it's stupid person trying to make a bad comparison.
•
•
u/HexspaReloaded 14h ago
$500k is too much. It infringes on free speech. It’s not just full nudes or csam. I’m against all of that and Musk and his enterprises, but I’m also against government overreach on art.
•
u/LastXmasIGaveYouHSV 17h ago
Why is Elon Musk so insistent on being able to create child porn?