Some of the most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet, but are actively promoted to users by social media companies.

Instagram is profiting from several ads that invite people to create nonconsensual nude images with AI image generation apps, once again showing that some of the most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet, but are actively promoted to users by social media companies unable or unwilling to enforce their policies about who can buy ads on their platforms.

While parent company Meta’s Ad Library, which archives ads on its platforms, who paid for them, and where and when they were posted, shows that the company has taken down several of these ads previously, many ads that explicitly invited users to create nudes and some ad buyers were up until I reached out to Meta for comment. Some of these ads were for the best known nonconsensual “undress” or “nudify” services on the internet.

God damn I hate this fucking AI bullshit so god damn much.

  • LostWon@lemmy.ca
    73·
    7 months ago

    That’s highly subjective, but the fascinating book The Dawn of Everything argues otherwise. There are even parts about the anthropological evidence some peoples just up and changed systems every so often (yes, non-violently). Our problem as people in the modern era is many can’t imagine anything else, not that no one ever did.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        39·
        7 months ago

        Unintentional Strawman misses the point.

        A economy is but a subsystem to serve an organized society.

        Not every society requires a economy, there are many ways to organize, the original foundational ideas go back to ancient greece. Read up about them.

        The people with wealth and power have all the insensitive to keep things as they are. They own the planets resources, the means of productions. They loby or laws.

        To think were waiting on one person to have “a better idea” for things to change is incredibly naive.

        I don’t know how the system will change how the next one will look but the current one is mathematically not sustainable for another century.

      • LostWon@lemmy.ca
        10·
        7 months ago

        It doesn’t. Graeber was an anthropologist and Wengrow is an archaeologist. It’s a review of existing evidence from past civilizations (the diversity of which most people are hugely ignorant about), making the case the most common representations of “civilization” and “progress” are severely limited, probably to a detrimental extent since we often can only base our conceptions of what is possible on what we know.