I came across this the other day. If you go to the photos tab on the @grom account, it’s an endless stream of women in bikinis or in explicit poses.
Apparently all anyone has to do is reply to any photo anyone posted of themselves, is something like “@grok put her in a bikini” — or more obscene demands, and it just spits out the image. It’s kind of disturbing how simple it is
It is rampant, even for minors. A huge number of middle and high school girls are getting harassed by classmates with nonconsenting porn made of them. The AI tools are nonconsenting porn machines as one of their primary use cases.
Just googling around, it's worse than I could have imagined. For a few bucks/image you can make your own videos with pre-baked prompts or even custom prompts.
At a few bucks/image they must be making bank. This is probably a huge industry.
Almost everywhere that accepts user generated content has T&C along the lines of "you grant us a perpetual license to use, store, transform, and share whatever you post" just so make sure nobody sues for the normal boring use of showing it to other people.
Google or any open source map product. And actually, if we use the SCOTUS approved DOJ v MSFT consent decree as precedent, any app that can't use this private API component would be an impacted party.
I'm an antitrust nerd - 20+ years since I made my first PACER account as a teenager to get documents from interesting cases..
95% of what people call "anticompetitive" or "monopolistic" has no legal bearing. People don't know the legal definition of those words and bandy them about based on vibes.
This however, is a very very clear case of violations of precedent. If we look at Microsoft's final judgement https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/final-judgment-133 see F(1)(a), H(2)(b), while these stipulations haven't been applied to Apple, if I were in a market dominant position, I'd be super careful about capricious restrictions like the example undocumented API, and behavior that mimics patterns of activity that were seen as actionably sanctionable to similar market dominant forces
I wasn’t previously aware of Ukrainians flying drones directly into helicopter’s rotors, but that does make sense.
I obviously know very little about battlefield armaments so forgive the potentially stupid question - but have drones made combat helicopters obsolete?
Helicopters are vulnerable to small quadcopter drones when landing and taking off. This limits some traditional uses of helicopters (anything that involves landing in enemy territory becomes much more risky) but still leaves others (shooting missiles at surface targets).
Helicopters are very effective at shooting down large fixed-wing drones.
Helicopters are very effective at sinking drone boats without air defenses, but are in turn very vulnerable to drone boats equipped with SAMs.
That's like asking if bullets made infantry obsolete. As long as there is a role for attack helicopter on the battlefield, then it is not obsolete, just more vulnerable during its missions.
The takeaway is the next Democrat president should just declare a public transit emergency and start building while the courts squabble. Same for housing reform. Same for climate change and shutting down coal power plants—once you shut it down and take out the turbines, it doesn’t matter what the courts say.
Intel hasn't gotten most of the money they were awarded. Even the Biden administration were hesitant in doling it out, because of concerns that Intel could deliver. That's why out of frustration, the previous CEO became vocal in saying "We still haven't gotten any money yet!" and was openly frustrated about it.
Lip-Bu Tan, in the last quarterly earnings signaled a decent likelihood of not developing 14A (and thus halting much of the semiconductor infrastructure they implied they would need the CHIPS money for). So it's perfectly fair for the government to say "We're not giving you the rest of the money."
What this deal does is release the rest of the money, but with strings attached.
There were always strings attached - even with the prior administration. The strings have merely changed, and Intel benefits by actually getting the money now vs a long drawn out process.
Why do you need to draw a line? Can there be good cults and bad teams?
Both have implicit contracts, and a contract requires consideration on both sides. The parties define the value of the consideration, so you can have a junior cult member who feels they are getting good value for what they pay, or a SW dev at an insurance company who feels they don't. I also don't see much difference in your ability to affect your situation if you are unhappy with the current state.
Apparently all anyone has to do is reply to any photo anyone posted of themselves, is something like “@grok put her in a bikini” — or more obscene demands, and it just spits out the image. It’s kind of disturbing how simple it is