Minnesota just passed a law specifically targeting x.ai tools that allow you to put someone's head on a nude picture. Don't other AI graphics tools let you accomplish the same thing? Don't the AI graphics tools merely automate what you could previously accomplish if you were a skilled Photoshop user? Of course there are legitimate uses for this technology like creating memes.
Wouldn't it make much more sense to mandate that machine id and IP address be encoded into the image itself? Don't they ultimately wish to punish the person who created the image?
Heard a radio show last evening where they interviewed the author of the bill. All they talked about was X.ai and Elon Musk. Definitely left the impression that is the only company they targeted. It was clear that both of them did not like Elon Musk so perhaps that is who they chose to highlight?
A lot of the (publicly discussed in the news) cases about this topic trace back to X.ai and Grok and suits against them. So it kind of makes sense that, in defending the law, they'd reference the company and implementation that seem to be getting used for it the most.
It's salesmanship, you want to sell the people on something (this law), you relate it to something they're already hearing about (X.ai and Grok being used to create sexualized and nude images of people).
Minnesota just passed a law specifically targeting x.ai tools that allow you to put someone's head on a nude picture. Don't other AI graphics tools let you accomplish the same thing? Don't the AI graphics tools merely automate what you could previously accomplish if you were a skilled Photoshop user? Of course there are legitimate uses for this technology like creating memes.
Wouldn't it make much more sense to mandate that machine id and IP address be encoded into the image itself? Don't they ultimately wish to punish the person who created the image?
It specifically targeted x.ai?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2025/0/HF/1606/versions/...
I don't see that, can you point out to me the language specifically targeting X? In fact the countersuit alleges that the law is overly broad.
Heard a radio show last evening where they interviewed the author of the bill. All they talked about was X.ai and Elon Musk. Definitely left the impression that is the only company they targeted. It was clear that both of them did not like Elon Musk so perhaps that is who they chose to highlight?
A lot of the (publicly discussed in the news) cases about this topic trace back to X.ai and Grok and suits against them. So it kind of makes sense that, in defending the law, they'd reference the company and implementation that seem to be getting used for it the most.
It's salesmanship, you want to sell the people on something (this law), you relate it to something they're already hearing about (X.ai and Grok being used to create sexualized and nude images of people).