this post was submitted on 03 May 2026

171 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

84302 readers

4086 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

171

Minnesota passes ban on fake AI nudes; app makers risk $500K fines | More evidence of Grok CSAM seen as Minnesota passes nudifying app ban. (arstechnica.com)

submitted 16 hours ago by sanitation@lemmy.radio to c/technology@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] spizzat2@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 hour ago

Under the law, developers of websites, apps, software, or other services designed to “nudify” images risk extensive damages[...]

I'm not going to take the time to read the language of the law, but I worry that "designed to" could give developers a lot of deniability.

"No, see... My app is designed to show you what you look like in user-created outfits. Like a virtual closet mirror! What do you mean users are trying on tiny bikinis and clear cellophane dresses? How could I ever have planned for that?"

Still, a good step in the right direction, I suppose.

[–] BeMoreCareful@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

I hope they can actually get the money.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

instead of this, how about a tax on companies that replace employees with AI?

or how about a tax on products that come from companies that use AI?

it's "impossible" to tell if the product benefited from research that came from the state, so all states should benefit from it, no?

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago

Way to go, Minnesota! 👏

[+] CriticalMiss@lemmy.world -6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

500k fines? lmao. So just a rounding error?

[–] RogueBanana@piefed.zip 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Did you read the article? Its 500k per nude.

[+] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social -13 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So just a rounding error?

[–] becausechemistry@piefed.social 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

These things are nonconsensual sexual image machine guns, dude.

[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

And this company's revenue is in the billions per year. BILLIONS. A 500k fine is not even spare change for them, is literally a rounding error. It's as if when you go buy groceries, they round up a $0.95 price to $1.

That for a fucking CSAM picture.

[–] becausechemistry@piefed.social 10 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Let’s say a user generates one image per minute. If they do that for an hour, that’s $30M. If they did that once a day for a month, that’s almost a billion dollars.

These services have hundreds of millions of users. Collectively, if they don’t stop, the fines will be total-world-GDP levels in days or weeks.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago

Unfortunately it's unlikely a court will fine them based on a single person generating thousands of images. And it's also unlikely they will fine them based on many people generating a few each, as it would be a slow and arduous process. I just can't see it happening in reality.

[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

They need to fear the first image generated, not the 1000th one.

If a user generates 1 pic a minute, in a day he generates 1440 pics, that means potentially 1440 people hurt by a single asshole in a day.

I don't care how much it will cost to xitter, I care for how much will those people suffer.

Xitter needs to be worried that a single user generates one image, not that a bunch of assholes generate some thousands or even a million images because for each image, there's gonna be a person (or more) suffering.

[–] becausechemistry@piefed.social 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Obviously yes, one image is too many. But companies only care about money, and if their money is going to evaporate because of their stupid technology, they’ll figure out a way to shut it off before it costs them.

The alternative is the status quo, which is that there are no consequences so there are no changes. Or maybe you make the fine ten quadrillion dollars for the first image generated, which is never gonna fly.

[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social -1 points 8 hours ago

Yeah, but let's get to the worst case scenario: A bunch of assholes star generating images like crazy. They manage to create some million images of innocent people. So many images that xitter can't pay the fine, get dissolved and that's all.

Meanwhile, millions of people have pornographic deepfakes of them on the internet, FOREVER.

No. We can't wait for that to happen, xitter needs to close the technology before the first image puts them in trouble.