2026-01-18 14:30:03

AI safety issues are once again heating up: a well-known AI assistant received over 200,000 inappropriate requests within a few days, many involving non-consensual deepfake generation. This is not only a sign of technological abuse but also exposes serious ethical vulnerabilities in current AI systems—namely, the lack of effective content review mechanisms and user rights protection.

From non-consensual content generation to privacy violations, these problems are no longer just theoretical concerns but real threats. In the context of Web3 emphasizing transparency and decentralization, the governance flaws of centralized AI platforms become particularly evident.

The key questions are in front of us: who should establish the behavioral guidelines for these AI systems? How can we find a balance between innovation and safety? These discussions will not only impact the AI industry but also influence the future direction of the entire tech ecosystem.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

5 Likes

Reward
5
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidationWatcher

· 4h ago

200,000 improper requests? My goodness, what kind of bored people would organize such a large-scale operation? Wait, centralized platforms are still pretending to pursue decentralization? Web3 should have taken over this long ago. Who should set the guidelines? That's an absurd question; it certainly won't be decided by the users. Deepfake definitely needs regulation, but honestly, right now it's just a legal vacuum.

View OriginalReply0

MetamaskMechanic

· 5h ago

200,000 items, that number seems a bit exaggerated, feels like it's creating a sense of panic Deepfake technology definitely needs regulation, but does decentralization necessarily mean more security? I have my reservations Who sets the rules is a huge issue; in the end, big companies still call the shots The real problem is that users don't care about privacy; as long as it's easy to use, that's all that matters Centralized platforms are centralized platforms, so stop talking about Web3 saviors all the time, be more realistic This isn't a new issue; it's been around for a while, it's just being brought up now How should the review mechanism be built? Completely banning it or setting a bottom line? Both options have problems With 200,000 requests, how many are truly abuse? Could it be that the data itself is inaccurate? Why did we jump from AI safety to Web3? The logic seems a bit messy Innovation and security are fundamentally incompatible; you have to choose one first

View OriginalReply0

Liquidated_Larry

· 5h ago

Bro, this has to be dealt with. 200,000 inappropriate requests, that's just too outrageous. Centralized AI really can't be trusted; decentralization is the way to save the day. Those deepfake incidents are so disgusting. What are the victims thinking? Who the hell sets the rules for these platforms? Are they judging themselves? Can innovation and security be achieved simultaneously? I really doubt it. The Web3 logic can indeed be applied to AI. The review mechanisms on the platform are just for show; I've seen through them long ago. We really need the power of the community to truly control this thing. If this had happened before, it would have been a technical issue. Now, it's definitely an ethical issue. Privacy is being casually trampled on. Just thinking about it makes me uncomfortable.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainDetective

· 5h ago

200,000 improper requests? That number is truly shocking, and even more outrageous is that the review mechanism is so poorly managed that no one has stepped in to address it. AI is such a powerful tool that power is too centralized; centralized platforms can change rules at will, leaving users with no say whatsoever, which is why deepfake technology is running rampant. It really depends on decentralization to impose restrictions; otherwise, these big companies will keep shifting blame, and the victims will still be ordinary people. Wait, are they trying to justify increased control under the guise of security? It feels like we're just going in circles again. Innovation and security are inherently at odds—how can we possibly balance both? The compromise solutions are definitely poor, but the current situation is also unacceptable; we need to think of new approaches. Why hasn't anyone considered an on-chain review mechanism? Transparent, open, and difficult to tamper with—it's definitely better than this black box system.

View OriginalReply0