Meta removes controversial AI feature on Instagram after backlash | TechCrunch
techcrunch.com
"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."
  • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.caEnglish
    11·
    2 days ago

    no ur slop

    you say “corporate violation of personal rights” i say “basic journalism” agree to disagree

    • luciferofastora@feddit.orgEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      no ur slop

      I didn’t know they trained their models on playground insult patterns

      you say “corporate violation of personal rights” i say “basic journalism”

      There is nothing journalistic to the way Meta, Grok and their ilk handle your pictures, nor about a family member disrespecting your wishes not to have them uploaded there.

      In general, your right to control what is done with your likeness should be the base assumption, to which some forms of journalistic usage can be argued to be an exception. Even more than that, it should be expectable of family to honour your wishes, no matter whether they understand or agree with your reasoning. My mom likes to isolate herself from news about current events because of all the negativity, which I find deeply irresponsible, but I don’t blast her with them out of a fundamental human respect for her wishes.

      I try to act in such a way that the reasoning behind my actions could be made law and I would agree with it. One such lawn would then be not to put your own enjoyment over other people’s comfort.

      agree to disagree

      I don’t think that sentiment applies to discussions about human rights.

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        So you’re going to insult me and my writing to my face for apparently no reason except that you get off on it, and then when I call you out on it, you’re going to act like I’m the child. You know what? Fuck off, we’re done. I’m not an AI or your mom that you can just take your shit out on and then carry on like nothing happened. Get fucked.

        • luciferofastora@feddit.orgEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          So you’re going to insult me and my writing to my face for apparently no reason except that you get off on it

          No, it just sounded like a pro-AI talking point, with the kind of affirmative “you are absolutely right” leading into a general anti-personal-rights statement of the sort an LLM might generate.

          when I call you out on it, you’re going to act like I’m the child.

          “No u” is hardly a callout. It’s literally a child’s reaction to criticism, attempting to reflect it rather than engage. At least I made an effort to form sentences and arguments, have a conversation, you know?

          I’m not an AI or your mom that you can just take your shit out on

          I avoid interacting with AI if I can help it (and if I genuinely thought you’re a bot, I wouldn’t even have replied). I also don’t take shit out on my mom, because why the hell would I? Frankly, I’m concerned that it’s a thought that occurred to you.

          I hope your mom is doing well. And I hope she’s not uploading your images to the slopmachine.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          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?