This post isn’t exclusively about deepfakes. It’s about editing someone else’s images. Making suggestive deepfakes is mentioned in the article as an example, but it’s not mentioned in the title or summary here.

That said, my points stand. Don’t post shit online if you don’t want it to be edited.

With the ease of photo manipulation, society has no choice but to adapt to nonsensical, simple edits. It can’t be stopped. There’s hundreds of apps and programs that do this now. Even adobe’s famous suite.

I know you hate Elon, I can hear it in your tone. But this isn’t an Elon thing. Look around.

You’ve totally changed the original post’s topic and made it into something obviously unacceptable. There’s a line to cross with content in general, AI or not, and any public ai model should absolutely have safety rails / content moderation on its output

Using grok this way is the same as a photo editor. It’s the human asking grok to do it that is the problem. Not grok or any other tool. Meta products have this exact same feature.

Grok will not post it publicly unless you click the button to do so. Again, it’s the person that is doing it, not grok.

Omg what horror. Have you discovered that you can click and drag any image from anywhere into photo editing software or ChatGPT or the likes? Whatever shall we do?! We have to make images uneditable somehow. This is a complete tragedy.

For real, why should I care?

The “nested” typo is likely why it didn’t do the token replacement.

Box is a bad example; it always has a value and can’t be unwrapped. It’s Result<T> and Option<T> that are the primary wrappers.

Result is for Errors, and Option is for nullables. If you consider it that way, the “issues” with unwrap are identical to other languages when errors and nulls aren’t properly handled.