[silisili]

> largely not doing much outside of 'grok is this true'

Hey now, don't forget about it's super important other use, taking innocent photos of people and regenerating them in less clothing and compromising positions.

I'm sad that I even know that.

[fy20]

They changed that recently, you need to be paying €10/mo for that now. The free plan and/or access for the basic Twitter plan are gone.

[pjc50]

That doesn't make it better! It did somehow slow down the regulatory response because politicians are dumb, though.

[IshKebab]

It means X can identify users at least, so they are probably quite a bit less likely to do that.

[hsbauauvhabzb]

You’ve obviously never attempted to complete a purchase while working under a regulatory body, required to test the theory.

[AlecSchueler]

What difference does that make?

[deinonychus]

it's much funnier now, that by putting it behind a paywall, they're explicitly saying "it's okay for you to do this, you just have to purchase a license first"

[Cytobit]

Security through enshittification. Nice.

[xp84]

Photoshop has been able to do that for 25 years. Do people realize that AI doesn’t magically know what their real bodies look like? AI is just pasting the averaged body parts from every porn image on top of what you were wearing. I know people love to be offended, but it’s weird to me that they’ve made up a right to not have someone privately mess with an image that has your face in it.

Maybe if this tech were completely secret and this was 1997, so a video of a naked Bill Clinton high-fiving Saddam Hussein in a hot tub was likely to shock the world, then it would be a big deal. But everyone knows all images (and especially surprising ones) are likely to be AI, I’m asking sincerely, does it really matter if people make fake photos for wanking purposes?