Microsoft engineer begs FTC to stop Copilot's offensive image generator – Our tests confirm it's a serious problem

Copilot dumpster fire
(Image credit: Shutterstock (2295499467))

The government and mainstream media might finally be catching up to what we reported in January: AI image generators output pictures that are both offensive and contain copyrighted characters. Today, Microsoft Engineer Shane Jones sent an open letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), asking the agency to warn the public about the risks of Copilot Designer, the company's image generation tool. Jones also sent a note to Microsoft's Board of Directors, asking it to investigate the software giant's decision to continue marketing a product with "significant public safety risks."

In his note to the board, Jones details how, in his testing, Copilot Designer (formerly known as Bing Image Generator), outputted offensive content, which ranged from sexualized pictures of women to images of "teenagers playing assassins with assault rifles." He also notes that Microsoft failed to take his concerns seriously, asking him to email the company's Office of Responsible AI, which apparently doesn't track the complaints it receives, or pass them along to the developers in charge of the product. 

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Avram Piltch
Managing Editor: Special Projects

Avram Piltch is Managing Editor: Special Projects. When he's not playing with the latest gadgets at work or putting on VR helmets at trade shows, you'll find him rooting his phone, taking apart his PC, or coding plugins. With his technical knowledge and passion for testing, Avram developed many real-world benchmarks, including our laptop battery test.

  • peachpuff
    Offensive is a relative term.

    outputted offensive content, which ranged from sexualized pictures of women to images of "teenagers playing assassins with assault rifles."
    I'm fine with this.
    Reply
  • umeng2002_2
    Offensive material is not a risk to anyone and it is protected free speech.
    Reply
  • helper800
    Lets just hope they are incapable of manufacturing images that would be considered illegal to own.
    Reply
  • Notton
    I don't see how this thread won't get locked, but I'll try...

    While making offensive images is protected free speech (not in all countries, but we'll use USA here) under the First Amendment, it does not protect you from its consequences.

    I am not the LegalEagle, nor a lawyer, so please forgive the butchered example.
    So, for example, let's say an easily recognizable and copyrighted character was doing something awful that they would never do. This lead to financial losses for the owner of said character, and they went to sue the creator in civil court for defamation.

    Who would get sued?

    Copilot owner, microsoft?
    Dall-E owner, openAI?
    The person who typed in the prompts?
    Some other person in the chain?

    AFAIK, all of this AI art and free speech stuff has not been tested in court.
    I know of some lawyers/lawfirms using chatGPT to write cases and losing badly, but beyond that? untested.
    Reply
  • why_wolf
    helper800 said:
    Lets just hope they are incapable of manufacturing images that would be considered illegal to own.
    They do so easily. Its only the after the fact "guard rails" the front end puts in place that make it less easy to output that kind of content. Its pretty obvious all the "AI" tools have ingested a non-trivial amount of CP into their training data.

    All of these "guard rails" don't' exist if you run a self hosted version.

    Just goes to show they really didn't do any filtering at all of the input data. Nor did anyone bother to check if the most obvious bad & illegal thing an image generator could spit out was possible before they released it to the public.
    Reply
  • apiltch
    Notton said:
    I don't see how this thread won't get locked, but I'll try...

    While making offensive images is protected free speech (not in all countries, but we'll use USA here) under the First Amendment, it does not protect you from its consequences.

    I am not the LegalEagle, nor a lawyer, so please forgive the butchered example.
    So, for example, let's say an easily recognizable and copyrighted character was doing something awful that they would never do. This lead to financial losses for the owner of said character, and they went to sue the creator in civil court for defamation.

    Who would get sued?

    Copilot owner, microsoft?
    Dall-E owner, openAI?
    The person who typed in the prompts?
    Some other person in the chain?

    AFAIK, all of this AI art and free speech stuff has not been tested in court.
    I know of some lawyers/lawfirms using chatGPT to write cases and losing badly, but beyond that? untested.
    I'm not sure what Disney and Warner Brothers are waiting for. Their copyrighted IP is being abused and the image generators are absolutely doing contributory infringement. Once, when I was in college, I went to the copy machine store to photocopy a t-shirt I had bought on a trip to a foreign country. I wanted to give out copies of the shirt's picture to a bunch of people in my class (for an assignment). Despite the fact that this shirt came from another country, Kinkos would refused to photocopy it because it had a copyright symbol on it. And who was going to go to international court and sue them for making 30 copies of a shirt?

    AI image generators are not only saying yes to any infringement people ask for but infringing even when nobody asked them to.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    apiltch said:
    I'm not sure what Disney and Warner Brothers are waiting for. Their copyrighted IP is being abused and the image generators are absolutely doing contributory infringement.
    Bingo!
    Reply
  • vanadiel007
    I am questioning why we need to have AI generate images in the first place.
    Are we that far gone that we cannot produce our own images anymore?
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    vanadiel007 said:
    I am questioning why we need to have AI generate images in the first place.
    Are we that far gone that we cannot produce our own images anymore?
    We don't.

    People that create these "AI" applications think we do.
    Reply
  • HyperMatrix
    I don’t see the issue with the Jewish Boss pictures. Oh no…the guy has a monkey and there are bananas there for the monkey? Anti-Semitism!

    I wonder if the people who write these articles would survive watching South Park without having a heart attack.
    Reply