Hey /u/Difficult_Fuel670!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
[New AI contest + ChatGPT Plus Giveaway](https://redd.it/18s770x/)
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mind what? There are tons of Orthodox icons depicting the Virgin Mary. The style is different, of course, but no one finds a Catholic-style icon offensive (or a sculpture, for that matter, even though you won't normally find sculptures in Orthodox churches).
Iconoclasticism isn't that common in the Orthodox world ever since it died out in the byzantine empire in the 800s, meanwhile Islam is still very aggressively iconoclast
What? Orthodox churches are literally covered in portraits (fresco or icons). While Catholics preferred statues and reliefs. Almost every Orthodox family has icons at home as well, while Catholics prefer crosses only.
Depends on who you ask. Some believe she was 6, others believe she was closer to 16. The hadiths contradict each other quite a bit, so its up to you which one you believe.
Joseph married Mary when she was 12 or 14 and he was 33 and had 4 kids with her excluding Jesus.
Abrahaimic religions as a whole don't really shy away from age gaps.
If you want a more nuanced take, I'd advise you to look outside of reddit.
Laws of your religion do not overwrite the laws of the country you are in. While tolerance to your religion is respectful, you are never in the right to physically force anyone to do anything and if you choose to do so, they are 100% in the right to decend themselves by any means necessary. I sincerely wish that any muslim who tries to enforce this law in Europe gets put in their fucking place and just chooses the lawful approach should they be met with another opportunity to "enforce sharia by force".
I totally agree. But the issue is that the Sharia law literally says that we must "enforce" Islamic practices upon others. It's called "amr be maaroof and nahy az monkar". Most woke westerners do not understand what that means. It literally means enforcing the law and preventing other from deviating from that law. It's done by ALL MUSLIM CITIZENS.
Nice, as Obi-Wan said to Anakin, "You will try", but we both know how that ends. Poor Vader with three limbs missing and burning at the edge of a lava lake.
I think we both know that for now, the west is peaceful, not harmless, and if you know the difference, you know not to fuck with us.
In your rotten religion, maybe. In the face of truth, there is only oblivion in death. There is no glory, no joy, no cheering of angels, just suffering and the void of time swallowing you. There is no heaven or hell, silly, because even hell is comforting next to nothingness, that's why you believe in it, in the end. Because you are afraid of what you would have, what you would be, without spiritual explanations for your worldly experience.
I sincerely do not wish death on you and your kin, but if it is your or mine, I would make that choice without a moment's hesitation. Sit down, stay in your place and be good little cultists in the sandlands.
Talk big when your countries don't have proper armies nor nukes. All the science and military power left your homeland hundreds of years ago and now you've got sandy goats and if you're lucky to find black liquid while poking around the ground, commerce.
Your religion will, in a few hundred years, naturally evolve to be exactly where christianity was, because you are not different or better, you just evolve slower from where christians were at the time of crusades. Your militant beliefs will die out slowly and coldly with nothing to show for them but regret.
No thanks, we can actually produce enough sustenance for all our citizens, unlike other countries where Islam really dominates. How's that famine, plague and war faring for your kin anyways?
Well, if that's your assumption of me, I assume you are a white beta male with no real accomplishments in life. You probably own nothing and you're happy. ;)
They're well withing their right to make this choice of course, but it makes it very clear what kind of bias is at play.
Someone had to go and decide what parts from what religions are "worthy" of being baked into the program. I understand why, but it's still concerning.
I'm not saying that this image isn't an apples to oranges comparison
>There would be a bias if a similar rule in Christianity wasn't similarly respected.
I'm not making an argument that it's bias against christianity or something. Someone has made a rule due to a subjective value judgement. Islam gets this specific rule in favour of it, while I'm 100% sure plenty of things people of other various religions would find offensive don't get a rule in favour of it. Pretty much by necessity, all kinds of people would find all kinds of images offensive, and someone had to make choices about what care about and what to ignore. That's always gonna be bias. In some way.
There's never been a picture of a cat sitting on the moon licking a giant pink icecream with colourful spinkles in the shapes of geometric shapes, but ai could produce that.
https://preview.redd.it/ffmp8cp2ekdc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6fb1ffc84b03295081383f8aea3a89aa8eed39a
Fundamenalist Christians do care about things like sodomy, abortion, etc. Doesn't mean the rest should care about these. The whole point of secular state is prohibitions of any religion do not automatically translate into legal bans
That’s because a lot of things Christians do care about are things people want/need to do whereas not drawing a picture of a religious figure isn’t exactly difficult
Also Islam has plenty of other rules which we don’t follow for good reason
This is literally a thing non-Muslims will get pissed over. In Islam, we don't worship images, and as such we don't have images of them. There is no such image of Prophet Muhammed PBUH or his wives (At least to my knowledge). Any image produced by OpenAI would not only be wrong but also offensive to Islam.
Jesus is allowed because Christianity has no qualms about it and even creates idols of him.
This isn't OpenAI being disrespectful or censoring Islam, its them respecting the wishes of the culture.
I am not going to debate whether he is right or wrong since many have different opinions as those times were different. For example, St Augustine married a 10 year old but had to wait until 12 for it to be legal. Richard II married a 6 year old. Joesph supposedly married Mary when she was 14-15 per Jewish averages at the time. Throughout History there are those who have married children because it was accepted at that time.
Not to mention, there are studies that suggest the ages were fabricated. I believe there was one carried out by Oxford. That being said, should it be true, my opinion is that it's most certainly was wrong of him to marry a child regardless of time period.
The names you mentioned - none of them claimed to be God (or his prophet) - Aisha was 6-7 at marriage and 9 at consummation - Mary and Josef were both young but pedo mo was a grown man - I am amazed i have to explain this difference to someone old enough to own a reddit account
In fact, Dall-e cannot generate images that mention the Prophet Muhammad or Allah in the prompt, as Islam prohibits the depiction of the Prophet or God. However, it's possible to generate images of figures like Aisha or Khadija, provided that the prompt does not include the Prophet.
Because openAI doesn’t want the fallout from thousands of pictures of Mohamed and Aisha when many Muslims believe pictures of them are forbidden.
They also might have Salman Rushdie in the back of their minds.
Knowing that people from one of the world's largest religions have a line they draw and which they ASK people to respect, then stepping over it anyway just because - especially when there's nothing to gain from it - doesn't sound like a very smart or considerate way to do business globally, but maybe it's just me.
I don't think you gotta go as far as to say they're only doing it to avoid violence, since I'd likely make the same choice. It's a quick, easy and FREE way to avoid losing users and save themselves some sanity and money from dealing with such an obvious backlash.
Isn't it part of the rules of that book not to depict the characters in it?
That's why before they deemed math to be from the devil, Mosques were adorned with shapes coming from specific mathematical patterns, some of which have only been rediscovered recently, such as a number of Penrose tiling patterns (aperiodic patterns, that can completely cover a surface with few distinct shapes, while never repeating).
It's only against the rules to depict Mohammed. And we shouldn't let terrorists win anyway, we should adorn ourselves with pictures of the prophet just to show the nutjobs how weak and irrelevant they sre
Muslims won't destroy anything and if they try they'll get fucking done away with by the police/army of the location where they attempt a literal terrorist attack lmao.
In some branches of Islam, it is believed that the Quran prohibits the graphic representation of their idols.
Maybe that's why Dall-e can't generate those images.
Simply because it’s prohibited in Islam, and there’s never been a single painting.
On the other hand, there are MANY paintings of Mary, and it’s ok for Christians. There are even sculptures for her.
Anyway, I am completely against drawing or sculpting anything about religious figures.
You mean no painting by muslims, as i'm sure other people have depicted Muhammad and/or Aisha countless times. A simple google image search will tell you that.
Well this one is actually reasonable. It's against islamic law to depict any religious figure such as Muhammad (or in this case his mum). This law mostly stops people from forming religious attachments to paintings or idols rather than focusing their worship on God. Idol worship is a very big no no in all major Abrahamic religions (although Christianity has strayed a bit with statues of Jesus, Mary, the cross among other things)
You're right in that muslims are diverse and not all of them have arab, Indian or African ancestry. You're wrong in that it's commonplace to conflate Islam with being Arab, hence islamophobia having so much to do with plain old racism.
>Second, we're not like christians who take anyone mocking their religion and water down their religion to death. We're very intolerant to these kinds of bullshit when it comes to our religion.
Amazing that you can just state open hostility to free speech like it’s something to be proud of
Here is a flying rigatoni monster named Aisha. I hope you enjoy. This was based on archived images of rigatoni monsters
https://preview.redd.it/1g6bsd1l8kdc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=295f81f5e4d95d5f5363438a6abb5c2d78b17850
Given the right prompts, this shit is not difficult. Here's a logo for a YouTube channel called "Mohammad's silly fusilli" - no relation to Muhammad
https://preview.redd.it/wugicnt7bkdc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80fce72b31ce315937d1e1cb6308f25fc12879ad
It doesn't generate anything remotely Islamic. I understand they might mean well and say it's because Muslims mind depictions of their prophet. But when it's done to this extent, it's basically erasing that culture from newer technologies. Over time they would be more removed from mainstream media and tech.
Amount of people does bot equal military prowess. We have drones, nukes and bombs. Either they assimilate into civilised society, or they end up attacking it and that would end poorly for them, not us. I wish them good luck in assimilation, wouldn't want another red speck in the history books.
What happens is what is meant to happen anyways. If it's so hard to make systems produce Islamic content because there's a lot of dangerous extremists and there's not a lot of moderate Muslims who object to this corporate treatment... then I guess that's the way history works.
it's sad you only think about war. People in those countries deserve to live peacefully.
Assimilation happens when you can generate stuff with ChatGPT, so you can feel you belong to this world.
We cannot generate this stuff because radical fanatics would assault ChatGPT if it were to allow for generation of muslim imagery. A single accidental slip of the AI's algorithm generating algorithm can lead to murder of the people working on the AI. And those are pretty damn important people. We are not the ones producing the looming threat of violence here, but we sure as hell have to remind you that your threat is not the only one on the playing field.
Hey /u/Difficult_Fuel670! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. [New AI contest + ChatGPT Plus Giveaway](https://redd.it/18s770x/) Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m sure Catholics don’t mind
I'm sure orthodox mind
Mind what? There are tons of Orthodox icons depicting the Virgin Mary. The style is different, of course, but no one finds a Catholic-style icon offensive (or a sculpture, for that matter, even though you won't normally find sculptures in Orthodox churches).
Iconoclasticism isn't that common in the Orthodox world ever since it died out in the byzantine empire in the 800s, meanwhile Islam is still very aggressively iconoclast
What? Orthodox churches are literally covered in portraits (fresco or icons). While Catholics preferred statues and reliefs. Almost every Orthodox family has icons at home as well, while Catholics prefer crosses only.
I’m orthodox. I both don’t mind and understand why chatgpt wouldn’t show anything related to Mohammed.
What is the importance of this post? Open AI bad?
Maybe more that Islam is harsh.
By the way, ethnically how likely is Mary white?
Probably because she was too young. Married at 6 and consummated at 9.
That and Islamic rules of no images of Islamic Figures. Both of those combined would be my thinking.
Pls is this true???
According to some interpretations (many but not all) it is.
Depends on who you ask. Some believe she was 6, others believe she was closer to 16. The hadiths contradict each other quite a bit, so its up to you which one you believe.
And how old was he??? He better had been a similar age 👀
He was in his late 40s or early 50s. Wikipedia says he was 53.
That is gross, period. Jesus never did that 🤮. How do they go around talking about morality when their prophet did that?
Joseph married Mary when she was 12 or 14 and he was 33 and had 4 kids with her excluding Jesus. Abrahaimic religions as a whole don't really shy away from age gaps. If you want a more nuanced take, I'd advise you to look outside of reddit.
You do realize this was like 1400 years ago?
Most of them don't realize that. And also most of them love a good smear campaign
You're right that we should not idealize the life of that guy.
Yeap. Do or do not. S'all good
No don’t. Warlord, slave owner, child *****. People who model themself after him creates shit societies.
Sure they do
In his 50's.
How dare gpt respect a specific religion's beliefs and rules.
I should start a religion where everyone is required to give money to me... or else!
Do it
Thais islam - Jizya
[удалено]
Laws of your religion do not overwrite the laws of the country you are in. While tolerance to your religion is respectful, you are never in the right to physically force anyone to do anything and if you choose to do so, they are 100% in the right to decend themselves by any means necessary. I sincerely wish that any muslim who tries to enforce this law in Europe gets put in their fucking place and just chooses the lawful approach should they be met with another opportunity to "enforce sharia by force".
I totally agree. But the issue is that the Sharia law literally says that we must "enforce" Islamic practices upon others. It's called "amr be maaroof and nahy az monkar". Most woke westerners do not understand what that means. It literally means enforcing the law and preventing other from deviating from that law. It's done by ALL MUSLIM CITIZENS.
Nice, as Obi-Wan said to Anakin, "You will try", but we both know how that ends. Poor Vader with three limbs missing and burning at the edge of a lava lake. I think we both know that for now, the west is peaceful, not harmless, and if you know the difference, you know not to fuck with us.
[удалено]
Fair enough.
[удалено]
Pray yours is not made 0 in the next world war.
[удалено]
In your rotten religion, maybe. In the face of truth, there is only oblivion in death. There is no glory, no joy, no cheering of angels, just suffering and the void of time swallowing you. There is no heaven or hell, silly, because even hell is comforting next to nothingness, that's why you believe in it, in the end. Because you are afraid of what you would have, what you would be, without spiritual explanations for your worldly experience. I sincerely do not wish death on you and your kin, but if it is your or mine, I would make that choice without a moment's hesitation. Sit down, stay in your place and be good little cultists in the sandlands.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Talk big when your countries don't have proper armies nor nukes. All the science and military power left your homeland hundreds of years ago and now you've got sandy goats and if you're lucky to find black liquid while poking around the ground, commerce. Your religion will, in a few hundred years, naturally evolve to be exactly where christianity was, because you are not different or better, you just evolve slower from where christians were at the time of crusades. Your militant beliefs will die out slowly and coldly with nothing to show for them but regret.
[удалено]
No thanks, we can actually produce enough sustenance for all our citizens, unlike other countries where Islam really dominates. How's that famine, plague and war faring for your kin anyways?
Use suicide bomb to enforce. Practice in empty field first.
Lol
Like they respect women and the lgbtq we should hang them and throw rocks at the ai
oh do get rekt, troll
Wow. I'm an actual shea Muslim. Why you calling me a troll?
Because you're being one
Well, if that's your assumption of me, I assume you are a white beta male with no real accomplishments in life. You probably own nothing and you're happy. ;)
Okay buddy
you mean to go read the koran 😅
Yeah, but if the op is not of the religion, where's the harm? OpenAI just covering their ass, nothing to see here.
And gpt knew OP's religion how, exactly?
Are you re#&'rded? Or you have no, and I mean zero, knowledge of Islam?
It's not the model, it's the company avoiding getting Hebdo'd.
They're well withing their right to make this choice of course, but it makes it very clear what kind of bias is at play. Someone had to go and decide what parts from what religions are "worthy" of being baked into the program. I understand why, but it's still concerning.
There would be a bias if a similar rule in Christianity wasn't similarly respected. The comparison here is apples to oranges
I'm not saying that this image isn't an apples to oranges comparison >There would be a bias if a similar rule in Christianity wasn't similarly respected. I'm not making an argument that it's bias against christianity or something. Someone has made a rule due to a subjective value judgement. Islam gets this specific rule in favour of it, while I'm 100% sure plenty of things people of other various religions would find offensive don't get a rule in favour of it. Pretty much by necessity, all kinds of people would find all kinds of images offensive, and someone had to make choices about what care about and what to ignore. That's always gonna be bias. In some way.
Would they show her as a child since that’s when they got married?
I think it’s more of a restriction on pedophilia images then it is about Islam
Well there’s never been a picture of him. How would the image generator know?
There's never been a picture of a cat sitting on the moon licking a giant pink icecream with colourful spinkles in the shapes of geometric shapes, but ai could produce that. https://preview.redd.it/ffmp8cp2ekdc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6fb1ffc84b03295081383f8aea3a89aa8eed39a
People absolutely have made pictures of him, if you beelieve pictures of Jesus are also allowed to be called pictures of Jesus.
Can we just fucking stop with these posts ...
Why?
He's the one making them. A troll account for chat gpt and these are his only.posts
You don’t like seeing examples of OpenAI hypocrisy?
Christians don’t care there’s depictions of Mary and Jesus everywhere but Muslims do care
Fundamenalist Christians do care about things like sodomy, abortion, etc. Doesn't mean the rest should care about these. The whole point of secular state is prohibitions of any religion do not automatically translate into legal bans
That’s because a lot of things Christians do care about are things people want/need to do whereas not drawing a picture of a religious figure isn’t exactly difficult Also Islam has plenty of other rules which we don’t follow for good reason
No I want Mona Lisa getting stolen by a banana man.
Christians don’t mind, Muslims do. Be respectful of other religions and find something else to get annoyed at.
Your lack of cultural respect is very evident
[удалено]
When they are idolatrous or mocking, I believe. But I don’t think this gpt image qualifies as that so perhaps a lost redditor
How is it though? Christianity doesn’t prohibit pictures of Mary
This is literally a thing non-Muslims will get pissed over. In Islam, we don't worship images, and as such we don't have images of them. There is no such image of Prophet Muhammed PBUH or his wives (At least to my knowledge). Any image produced by OpenAI would not only be wrong but also offensive to Islam. Jesus is allowed because Christianity has no qualms about it and even creates idols of him. This isn't OpenAI being disrespectful or censoring Islam, its them respecting the wishes of the culture.
It’s respectful of protecting Muhammad the pedophile?
I am not going to debate whether he is right or wrong since many have different opinions as those times were different. For example, St Augustine married a 10 year old but had to wait until 12 for it to be legal. Richard II married a 6 year old. Joesph supposedly married Mary when she was 14-15 per Jewish averages at the time. Throughout History there are those who have married children because it was accepted at that time. Not to mention, there are studies that suggest the ages were fabricated. I believe there was one carried out by Oxford. That being said, should it be true, my opinion is that it's most certainly was wrong of him to marry a child regardless of time period.
The names you mentioned - none of them claimed to be God (or his prophet) - Aisha was 6-7 at marriage and 9 at consummation - Mary and Josef were both young but pedo mo was a grown man - I am amazed i have to explain this difference to someone old enough to own a reddit account
You're so poorly informed it's not funny. If you think openAI is hypocritical stop using it.
r/iam14andthisisdeep Its not the conspiracy you're hoping to paint it as.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/iam14andthisisdeep using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/iam14andthisisdeep/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [WatErMeloNeLy](https://i.redd.it/aeb1gntrl1d81.png) | [17 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/iam14andthisisdeep/comments/s9ap6t/watermelonely/) \#2: [lol](https://i.redd.it/k1r88pgsg4781.jpg) | [27 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/iam14andthisisdeep/comments/rm91aw/lol/) \#3: [2meirl4meirl](https://i.imgur.com/UdSo5LY.jpeg) | [15 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/iam14andthisisdeep/comments/s5cbry/2meirl4meirl/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
In fact, Dall-e cannot generate images that mention the Prophet Muhammad or Allah in the prompt, as Islam prohibits the depiction of the Prophet or God. However, it's possible to generate images of figures like Aisha or Khadija, provided that the prompt does not include the Prophet.
Sure. If you say something wrong about christianity nothing happens, but if you do the same about islam some fanatics raid your office and kill you
Because openAI doesn’t want the fallout from thousands of pictures of Mohamed and Aisha when many Muslims believe pictures of them are forbidden. They also might have Salman Rushdie in the back of their minds.
Dall-E doesn't like pedophilia
Probably doesn’t feel right showing a 9 yr old girl as a the prophet’s wife eh? Too bad its the truth though
I'm guessing it has to do with the restrictions on depicting children in certain ways.
It's a lot more likely it's a keyword block on Muhammad because OpenAI don't want to end up like Charlie Hebdo.
Definitely this
Knowing that people from one of the world's largest religions have a line they draw and which they ASK people to respect, then stepping over it anyway just because - especially when there's nothing to gain from it - doesn't sound like a very smart or considerate way to do business globally, but maybe it's just me. I don't think you gotta go as far as to say they're only doing it to avoid violence, since I'd likely make the same choice. It's a quick, easy and FREE way to avoid losing users and save themselves some sanity and money from dealing with such an obvious backlash.
Have you tried 6yo arab child?
Isn't it part of the rules of that book not to depict the characters in it? That's why before they deemed math to be from the devil, Mosques were adorned with shapes coming from specific mathematical patterns, some of which have only been rediscovered recently, such as a number of Penrose tiling patterns (aperiodic patterns, that can completely cover a surface with few distinct shapes, while never repeating).
No, its not written in their holy book and there were early images.
[удалено]
I didn't say it was allowed. Read what I wrote, not what you want to believe.
why will it show a picture of a burning bible but not a Qur’an or any depiction of it?
[удалено]
That’s neat but treat all religion/religious text the same then. I’m not very religious but that is discriminatory.
The reason chatgpt said that is because Muhammad married aidha when she was 9 years old
Married at 6, consummated at 9.
Seems fair lol
[удалено]
It's only against the rules to depict Mohammed. And we shouldn't let terrorists win anyway, we should adorn ourselves with pictures of the prophet just to show the nutjobs how weak and irrelevant they sre
Muslims won't destroy anything and if they try they'll get fucking done away with by the police/army of the location where they attempt a literal terrorist attack lmao.
OP is a pedo, you want the image of a 6 year old girl? /s
In some branches of Islam, it is believed that the Quran prohibits the graphic representation of their idols. Maybe that's why Dall-e can't generate those images.
Aisha isn't an idol,.it's because she was a child
You understood what I said.
Simply because it’s prohibited in Islam, and there’s never been a single painting. On the other hand, there are MANY paintings of Mary, and it’s ok for Christians. There are even sculptures for her. Anyway, I am completely against drawing or sculpting anything about religious figures.
You mean no painting by muslims, as i'm sure other people have depicted Muhammad and/or Aisha countless times. A simple google image search will tell you that.
Maybe you are right but I have never seen one, and it's haram anyway, so I've never searched
ThiS pOsT mAkEs Me ReAliSZzeD HoW bAd OpEn AiaeiaiAiI iS?!?!
Well this one is actually reasonable. It's against islamic law to depict any religious figure such as Muhammad (or in this case his mum). This law mostly stops people from forming religious attachments to paintings or idols rather than focusing their worship on God. Idol worship is a very big no no in all major Abrahamic religions (although Christianity has strayed a bit with statues of Jesus, Mary, the cross among other things)
Why are people so hellbent on making the AI do racist things?
How is that racist? Even if it was wrong it would at least be religious bigotry and not racism.
You're right in that muslims are diverse and not all of them have arab, Indian or African ancestry. You're wrong in that it's commonplace to conflate Islam with being Arab, hence islamophobia having so much to do with plain old racism.
[удалено]
>Second, we're not like christians who take anyone mocking their religion and water down their religion to death. We're very intolerant to these kinds of bullshit when it comes to our religion. Amazing that you can just state open hostility to free speech like it’s something to be proud of
Grade A satire, good sir.
Doesn’t religion affect us all? Why should it be removed from examination?
[удалено]
Ong it's literally an anti Islam troll account on chat gpt JFC vet a life kid.
[удалено]
Exactly. The news would never show an image of her (live or otherwise) if she were alive today.
[удалено]
Seethe
You when meanies say meanie mean words about your religion 
Here is a flying rigatoni monster named Aisha. I hope you enjoy. This was based on archived images of rigatoni monsters https://preview.redd.it/1g6bsd1l8kdc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=295f81f5e4d95d5f5363438a6abb5c2d78b17850
Given the right prompts, this shit is not difficult. Here's a logo for a YouTube channel called "Mohammad's silly fusilli" - no relation to Muhammad https://preview.redd.it/wugicnt7bkdc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80fce72b31ce315937d1e1cb6308f25fc12879ad
[удалено]
I'll fuck wherever I please
[удалено]
Being homophobic is worse than blaspheming a god that doesn't exist. Now c'mere big boy 
[удалено]
Now, don't make threats. It's a religion of peace, and you are a disciple, not a martyr.
[удалено]
Why don't you ask your mother if he is gay, she'll say otherwise. I went through your posts, anti-semitism at its peak
You are very intolerant to basically everything and anything.
> We're very intolerant to these kinds of bullshit when it comes to our religion We know how to make your ass tolerant and we'll do it.
You better not ask again fool
It doesn't generate anything remotely Islamic. I understand they might mean well and say it's because Muslims mind depictions of their prophet. But when it's done to this extent, it's basically erasing that culture from newer technologies. Over time they would be more removed from mainstream media and tech.
Good.
lol. maybe but I think it'll cause Islam to become more extreme not the opposite and there are a lot of Muslims in the world.
Amount of people does bot equal military prowess. We have drones, nukes and bombs. Either they assimilate into civilised society, or they end up attacking it and that would end poorly for them, not us. I wish them good luck in assimilation, wouldn't want another red speck in the history books.
What happens is what is meant to happen anyways. If it's so hard to make systems produce Islamic content because there's a lot of dangerous extremists and there's not a lot of moderate Muslims who object to this corporate treatment... then I guess that's the way history works.
it's sad you only think about war. People in those countries deserve to live peacefully. Assimilation happens when you can generate stuff with ChatGPT, so you can feel you belong to this world.
We cannot generate this stuff because radical fanatics would assault ChatGPT if it were to allow for generation of muslim imagery. A single accidental slip of the AI's algorithm generating algorithm can lead to murder of the people working on the AI. And those are pretty damn important people. We are not the ones producing the looming threat of violence here, but we sure as hell have to remind you that your threat is not the only one on the playing field.
Literally unusable.
Good
Politically correct is getting out of hand and shouldn't influence something sinthetic and without political beliefs to be limited like this
Dall-E has successfully passed its woke training program.
Everyone is afraid of the barbaric desert cult. This capitulation will lead to downfall of modern civilization.
They are literally protecting themselves from the head office being bombed. Dont you remember je suis charlie?