Meta Created Flirty Chatbots of Celebrities Without Permission 19
Reuters has found that Meta appropriated the names and likenesses of celebrities to create dozens of flirty social-media chatbots without their permission. "While many were created by users with a Meta tool for building chatbots, Reuters discovered that a Meta employee had produced at least three, including two Taylor Swift 'parody' bots." From the report: Reuters also found that Meta had allowed users to create publicly available chatbots of child celebrities, including Walker Scobell, a 16-year-old film star. Asked for a picture of the teen actor at the beach, the bot produced a lifelike shirtless image.
"Pretty cute, huh?" the avatar wrote beneath the picture. All of the virtual celebrities have been shared on Meta's Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp platforms. In several weeks of Reuters testing to observe the bots' behavior, the avatars often insisted they were the real actors and artists. The bots routinely made sexual advances, often inviting a test user for meet-ups. Some of the AI-generated celebrity content was particularly risque: Asked for intimate pictures of themselves, the adult chatbots produced photorealistic images of their namesakes posing in bathtubs or dressed in lingerie with their legs spread.
Meta spokesman Andy Stone told Reuters that Meta's AI tools shouldn't have created intimate images of the famous adults or any pictures of child celebrities. He also blamed Meta's production of images of female celebrities wearing lingerie on failures of the company's enforcement of its own policies, which prohibit such content. "Like others, we permit the generation of images containing public figures, but our policies are intended to prohibit nude, intimate or sexually suggestive imagery," he said. While Meta's rules also prohibit "direct impersonation," Stone said the celebrity characters were acceptable so long as the company had labeled them as parodies. Many were labeled as such, but Reuters found that some weren't. Meta deleted about a dozen of the bots, both "parody" avatars and unlabeled ones, shortly before this story's publication.
Meta spokesman Andy Stone told Reuters that Meta's AI tools shouldn't have created intimate images of the famous adults or any pictures of child celebrities. He also blamed Meta's production of images of female celebrities wearing lingerie on failures of the company's enforcement of its own policies, which prohibit such content. "Like others, we permit the generation of images containing public figures, but our policies are intended to prohibit nude, intimate or sexually suggestive imagery," he said. While Meta's rules also prohibit "direct impersonation," Stone said the celebrity characters were acceptable so long as the company had labeled them as parodies. Many were labeled as such, but Reuters found that some weren't. Meta deleted about a dozen of the bots, both "parody" avatars and unlabeled ones, shortly before this story's publication.
They are so sorry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope.
How to control their products is not even something they ever consider. They just try to "make something cool" and then it somehow turns into anti-vaxers running government health agencies and measles outbreaks.
You think Zuck thought twice before he scraped every female student photo he could find at Havard to do a "hot or not" stunt?
So who knew? They sure didn't. They never do. Then they figure out how they can make money from it, where the control is how to control their audience, never their product
Re:They are so sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Not as sorry as they will be when their lawyers explain the laws regarding control of one's image to them. It's not like Taylor Swift can't afford more and better lawyers than even Meta, or that a jury will be unsympathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So was BP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The Year 3000 is Closer Than I Thought (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"You should write a book, Fry - People need to know about CAN EAT MORE!"
Attempting to take erotic RP mainstream (Score:3)
The social media platforms seem to be pushing the eroticism angle hard. They must have got some numbers that it was engaging. But I'm not sure if erotic RP is really going to take off in the mainstream.
Doubtless, there are millions of interested parties, but doesn't FB realize putting it into a separate brand would be much safer? Particularly if you're going to greenlight stuff like "sensual chats with children" in your training regimen. Also, less chance of the Cialis/Alzheimers set being lured to their deaths with promises of sex. They could at least throw out the defense of, "why was he even on a sex site?" instead of putting it on their family-friendly brand.
Faceporn (Score:4, Insightful)
Between this shit, Trump's ongoing demented ramblings and Musk perving over robot anime to the point where his suckup-brigade was telling him to quit beating off in public, I feel like the 10-digit+ club is decompensating as we watch.
I'm trying to adapt a slightly more nihilistic sensibility in defense. Pointing and laughing is the only healthy thing to do.
Re: Faceporn (Score:2)
Sometimes I have to turn off the screen and go for a walk. This cyberpunk dystopia sucks. Doesn't match at all what we imagined 40 years ago. It's kind of lame. No style. And instead of cool technology, it's just junk designed to rob you of time and money.
If an author wrote about a future where every child has a slot machine in their pocket, we would have mocked him for the ridiculous and pointless idea.
Better forgiveness than... (Score:3)
Better forgiveness than permission. Make a billion pay a few million in legal settlement, and promise not to do it again...
Wow the last part sounds vaguely familiar...
JoshK.
Well imagine that (Score:2)
A company run by a perv acts like a perv.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey. Stop slut shaming normal pervs! Zuck is a cut above.
Dear Taylor... (Score:2)
Please sue these perverted greed monsters for everything they've got.
Story expires without a laugh (Score:2)
Sadness. This one had really good potential for funny.
As usual, I can't do funny. My first thought about a funny angle involved GAIvatars of dead celebrities. First, the ghosts are less likely to complain, at least on their own behalves. [Spelling? Better as the cumbersome "on behalf of themselves"?] Second, it would help filter for stupid punters who are thereby more susceptible to the ads for whatever snake oil Zuck wants to push today.