[chrisjj]

Is an image of someone wearing only a bikini seriously claimed to be sexual here?

Not by this article, for sure.

"The service prohibits pornography involving real people’s likenesses and sexual content involving minors, which is illegal to create or distribute.

Still, users have prompted Grok to digitally remove clothing from photos — mostly of women — so the subjects appeared to be wearing only underwear or bikinis."

[archagon]

Try doing that to your coworker and report back on how HR describes it in your offboarding meeting.

[chrisjj]

The question is about an image not an action.

[tukarsdev]

Removing people's clothes without their consent is assault, it doesn't matter if, in another setting, where they did consent to it, it would be fine. It obviously is sexual if you look at the intent of people doing it. Not the clothing itself.

[chrisjj]

> Removing people's clothes without their consent is assault

Didn't you know? Grok does not actually remove people's clothes. Instead it pastes from photos of /other people who are already naked/.

[tukarsdev]

It makes it look realistic with their likeness and body shape though, so it's not merely "pasting" from photos of other people. And quite honestly I find it morally objectionable to have a tool that makes violating consent and bodily autonomy so trivial. Filters exist, they should be used. It's nothing like photoshop. It runs on their servers, using their software, and then is uploaded, by them, onto their website. Yeah I definitely hold X and grok accountable for the harm it causes. It's nothing like offline software.