[quitit]

I don't see the point. Idiots are fooled by far less convincing images.

Humanity has had the ability to lie with pictures since the invention of photography. The field of special effects can be described as lying about things that don't matter.

Without using Stable Diffusion, I can still photoshop an image or deepfake a video. Stable Diffusion isn't really changing what's possible here, and arguably is less advanced than what's possible with Deepfakes or even the facial filters available on social networks.

Like with all deceptive imagery: one just needs to use their noggin.

* Also I might add: the article is actually out of date on some aspects, because this technology is evolving so rapidly. Literally every day there is a new and interesting way that people are applying the tech.

[JohnHaugeland]

It's no different than Google images, which is also voluntarily polite by default.

In both tools you can get naughty images, but you have to tell the tool that's okay.

This is not about censorship or moralizing.

It is just having the tool know when it's allowed to do that stuff. It's a key basic product feature if you're actually using the thing for content and not just having fun making pictures

Everyone acting like there's some kind of free speech issue should go into their account and turn the filter off, then try to calm down