this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
378 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

81208 readers
4305 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the days after the US Department of Justice (DOJ) published 3.5 million pages of documents related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, multiple users on X have asked Grok to “unblur” or remove the black boxes covering the faces of children and women in images that were meant to protect their privacy.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 179 points 4 days ago (6 children)

unblur the face with 1000% accuracy

They have no idea how this models work :D

[–] pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 231 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 111 points 4 days ago (1 children)

biblically accurate cw casting

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 32 points 4 days ago

Barrett O'Brien

[–] annoyed_onion@lemmy.world 56 points 4 days ago

Though it is 2026. Who's to say Elon didn't feed the unredacted files into grok while out of his face on ket 🙃

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 38 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

It feels like being back on the playground

"nuh uh, my laser is 1000% more powerful"

"oh yea, mine is ~~googleplex~~ googolplex percent more powerful"

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It’s the same energy as “don’t hallucinate and just say if you don’t know the answer”

[–] pkjqpg1h@lemmy.zip 12 points 4 days ago

and don't forget "make no mistakes" :D

[–] Armand1@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

Or percentages

[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 101 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (7 children)

Are these people fucking stupid? AI can't remove something hardcoded to the image. The only way for it to "remove" it is by placing a different image over it, but since it has no idea what's underneath, it would literally just be making up a new image that has nothing to do with the content of the original. Jfc, people are morons. I'm disappointed the article doesn't explicitly state that either.

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 50 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

The black boxes would be impossible, but there are some types of blur that keep enough of the original data they can be undone. There was a pedofile that used a swirl to cover his face in pictures and investigators were able to unswirl the images and identify him.

With how the rest of it has gone it wouldn't surprise me if someone was incompetent enough to use a reversible one, although I have doubts Grok would do it properly.

Edit: this technique only works for video, but maybe if there are several pictures of the same person all blurred it could be used there too?

https://youtu.be/acKYYwcxpGk

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 20 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Several years ago, authorities were searching the world for a guy who had been going around the world, molesting children, photographing them, and distributing them on the Internet. He was often in the photos, but he had chosen to use some sort of swirl blur on his face to hide it. The authorities just "unswirled" it, and there was his face, in all those photos of abused children.

They caught him soon after.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Barracuda@lemmy.zip 16 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A swirl is a distortion that is non-destructive. Am anonymity blur averages out pixels over a wide area in a repetitive manner, which destroys information. Would it be possible to reverse? Maybe a little bit. Maybe one pixel out of every %, but there wouldn't be any way to prove the accuracy of that pixel and there would be massive gaps in information.

[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Swirl is destfuctive like almost everything in raster graphics with recompressing, but unswirling it back makes a good approximation in somehow reduced quality. If the program or a code of effect is known, e.g. they did it in Photoshop, you just drag a slider to the opposite side. Coming to think of it, it could be a nice puzzle in an adventure game or one another kind of captcha.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, but this type of machine learning and diffusion models used in image genAI are almost completely disjoint

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 4 days ago

They think that the AI is smart enough to deduce from the pixels around it what the original face must have looked like, even though there's actually no reason why there should be a strict causal relationship between those things.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)

There was someone who reported that due to the incompetence of whitehouse staffers, some of the Epstein files had simply been "redacted" in ms word by highlighting the text black, so people were actually able to remove the redactions by turning the pdf back into word and removing the black highlighting to reveal the text.

Who knows if some of the photos might be the same issue.

[–] KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 4 days ago (2 children)

That's, not how images like png or jpgs work.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Willoughby@piefed.world 30 points 4 days ago (8 children)

Won't work and if it does work, the resulting image has little to nothing to do with the original.

Source: I opened a badly taken .raw file a few thousand times and I know what focal length means, come at me.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Etterra@discuss.online 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Put all these creepy bastards on a publicly viewable list.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Didn't they already do that in their public posts or whatever? They don't care.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 54 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein

I'm so done with all the whitewashing. "Sex offender" sounds like I behaved wrong in consensual sex. What this prick was is a pedophile. A child rapist. A kid-abuser and -rapist. But surely no "late financier" or whatever else media chose over the facts.

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Also a slaver and child abductor.

[–] SaraTonin@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

And, it seems, murderer

[–] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago

Oh right, my bad 😐

[–] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 56 points 4 days ago (18 children)

How do these AI models generate nude imagery of children without having been trained with data containing illegal images of nude children?

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 59 points 4 days ago

The datasets they are trained on do in fact include CSAM. These datasets are so huge that it easily slips through the cracks. It's usually removed whenever it's found, but I don't know how this actually affects the AI models that have already been trained on that data — to my knowledge, it's not possible to selectively "untrain" models, and they would need to be retrained from scratch. Plus I occasionally see it crop up in the news about how new CSAM keeps being found in the training data.

It's one of the many, many problems with generative AI

[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 15 points 4 days ago

Can't ask them to sort that out. Are you anti-ai? That's a crime! /s

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 26 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I am so glad I no longer interact with that dumpster fire of a social network. It's like the Elon takeover and the monetization program brought out every weirdo in the world out of the woodwork

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aeration1217@lemmy.org 15 points 4 days ago

Sounds about right for x users

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

People are so fucking sick.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 20 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I doubt any of these people are accessing X over Tor. Their accounts and IPs are known.

In a sane world, they'd be prosecuted.
In MAGAMERICA, they are protected by the Spirit of Epstein

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 days ago

What crime do you imagine they would be committing?

I don't know what they hope to gain by seeing the kid's face, unless they think they can match it up with an Epstein family member or something (seems unlikely to be their goal).

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Of course they are. Who's left on Twitter nowadays? Elon acolytes?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›