> [A] new criminal offence will make it illegal for companies to supply tools designed to create non-consensual intimate images, targeting the problem at its source.
Well, yes, if one considers trying to prosecute a non-UK company or its directors "targeting the problem". I imagine that this might run into problems in the USA.
In the same speech, the government defends staying on Twitter:
> It is also worth bearing in mind, with 19 million people on X in this country, and more than a quarter using it as their primary source of news, that our views – and often simply the facts – need to be heard.
*sigh*
@neil the point of the AI slop machines is they are not designed to do specific things, but are given lots of data and asked to do things. I think proving that groks AI porn bot was designed to do that is going to be hard.
Will they ban paint brushes as well as someone could use them to paint a naked portrait?
I will need to see the actual legislative language, but I can well imagine that it might get hung up on "designed to", yes.
And yes, as with computer misuse stuff (and other stuff), separately the lawful but with the potential for misuse, from the unlawful, will be key.
@neil @chrisgerhard devil will be in the details. Likely unenforceable fines will be levelled anyway. Are #ofcom then *really* going to deprive "more than a quarter of people" from access to news and ban #Twitter?
