Gregory's Server@Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten the person who used the tool is responsible for its output. This is how it has always worked. When I was making videos for corporates I wouldn't be able to get away with using random stock footage, much of which is highly sexualised. I couldn't just say "this is what the shutterstock search returned". This is obviously absurd.
|
4 comments
@Jon_Kramer the woman who's face it was objected to it. At the very least edited photos require approval. Like I said, I couldn't get away with this conduct prior to AI image generators. Someone selected and posted the image. They are responsible. @quinsibell Great. Now go look at the picture and tell me what is objectionable. Don't get back to me, I'm done with this idiotic conversation about nothing. @Jon_Kramer it doesn't matter what I consider objectionable. A photo was edited and distributed in a way that the person in the photo objected to without consultation. |
@quinsibell @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten LOOK at the output as a stand alone piece, and tell me what is objectionable about it. The phrase "highly sexualized" indicates to me that you have not seen the photo.
I think many people commenting on this thread have not seen the photo, and therefore fail to understand what this discussion IS. This leap to vilify a woman who was just attempting to do her job the best way she could is... petty.
And I am done with it.