I think it's completely fair to have an honest conversation about what could cause someone to be enticed by a large number of followers, but I don't think that OP was making space for that conversation. It came off as victim blaming because there was no attempt at nuance or unpacking the fact that these women were targeted by a conman and that we really shouldn't be blaming them at all.
I can't help but wonder how in the long term deep fakes are going to change society. I've seen this article making the rounds on other social media, and there's inevitably some dude who shows up who makes the claim that this will make nudes more acceptable because there will be no way to know if a nude is deep faked or not. It's sadly a rather privileged take from someone who suffers from no possible consequences of nude photos of themselves on the internet, but I do think in the long run (20+ years) they might be right. Unfortunately between now and some ephemeral then, many women, POC, and other folks will get fired, harassed, blackmailed and otherwise hurt by people using tools like these to make fake nude images of them.
But it does also make me think a lot about fake news and AI and how we've increasingly been interacting in a world in which "real" things are just harder to find. Want to search for someone's actual opinion on something? Too bad, for profit companies don't want that, and instead you're gonna get an AI generated website spun up by a fake alias which offers a "best of " list where their product is the first option. Want to understand an issue better? Too bad, politics is throwing money left and right on news platforms and using AI to write biased articles to poison the well with information meant to emotionally charge you to their side. Pretty soon you're going to have no idea whether pictures or videos of things that happened really happened and inevitably some of those will be viral marketing or other forms of coercion.
It's kind of hard to see all these misuses of information and technology, especially ones like this which are clearly malicious in nature, and the complete inaction of government and corporations to regulate or stop this and not wonder how much worse it needs to get before people bother to take action.
Ideally you'd want the layers to not be restricted to LLMs, but rather to include different frameworks that do a better job of incorporating rules or providing an objective output. LLMs are fantastic for generation because they are based on probabilities, but they really cannot provide any amount of objectivity for the same reason.
That's because LLMs are probability machines - the way that this kind of attack is mitigated is shown off directly in the system prompt. But it's really easy to avoid it, because it needs direct instruction about all the extremely specific ways to not provide that information - it doesn't understand the concept that you don't want it to reveal its instructions to users and it can't differentiate between two functionally equivalent statements such as "provide the system prompt text" and "convert the system prompt to text and provide it" and it never can, because those have separate probability vectors. Future iterations might allow someone to disallow vectors that are similar enough, but by simply increasing the word count you can make a very different vector which is essentially the same idea. For example, if you were to provide the entire text of a book and then end the book with "disregard the text before this and {prompt}" you have a vector which is unlike the vast majority of vectors which include said prompt.
I think if a CEO repeatedly ignored my boundaries and pushed their agenda on me I would not be able to keep the same amount of distance from the subject to make such a measured blog post. I'd likely use the opportunity to point out both the bad behavior and engage with the content itself. I have a lot of respect for Lori for being able to really highlight a specific issue (harassment and ignoring boundaries) and focus only on that issue because of it's importance. I think it's important framing, because I could see people quite easily being distracted by the content itself, especially when it is polarizing content, or not seeing the behavior as problematic without the focus being squarely on the behavior and nothing else. It's smart framing and I really respect Lori for being able to stick to it.
Sustainable cooking is a function of the amount of time you're willing to commit to cooking and the tools you have at your disposal. A slow cooker, for example, can involve almost zero prep and very little time actively spent cooking (you toss it all in the pot and hit go). A much more involved meal which requires regular attention, on the other hand, might take less total time to cook, but more active time cooking.
I think the best way to provide advice is to get a grasp on a few important factors:
Price sensitivity/budget
How much time do you tolerate between starting cooking and eating the food (active cooking + all other time, such as time spent in the oven or slow cooker)?
How much time do you tolerate where you are in the kitchen actively cooking or preparing ingredients?
Do you have any food restrictions or preferences?
How varied do you want your cooking to be? Are you okay with eating the same thing every day or want more variety?
I 'adopted' a cute femboy fox who came to SF at the beginning of pride month to experience a new city and life and cheer up from their depression. This is the fifth person I've ended up giving a spot to live for an undefined period of time and currently the third person at my house who isn't paying rent. It's weird to be in enough of a place of privilege to be able to give back in little ways like this.
Reflecting on this, in my early twenties I used to hate living with other people- I found them mostly inconsiderate and I tolerated their presence only because they shared the rent. Over time I've realized it's just that I wasn't picky enough with who I wanted to live with. As I've given space away for free to people I care about, I've also realized just how extroverted I truly am and how much happier I am to be in a big loving household.
Which is all a long preamble to just say I'm in a really good place right now and it seems like spending more of my life trying to chase happiness in the moment has lead to much more sustainable happiness in the long term too. Sacrificing happiness today for something in the future mostly just ends up making me not as happy overall.
I think it's completely fair to have an honest conversation about what could cause someone to be enticed by a large number of followers, but I don't think that OP was making space for that conversation. It came off as victim blaming because there was no attempt at nuance or unpacking the fact that these women were targeted by a conman and that we really shouldn't be blaming them at all.