shared via https://feddit.de/post/2805371
Each of these reads like an extremely horny and angry man yelling their basest desires at Pornhub’s search function.
shared via https://feddit.de/post/2805371
Each of these reads like an extremely horny and angry man yelling their basest desires at Pornhub’s search function.
Please don’t call people idiots needlessly.
The issue is that this technology can be used to create pornographic material of anyone that has some level of realism without their consent. For creators and the average person, this is incredibly harmful. I don’t want porn of myself to be made and neither do a lot of creators online.
Not only are these images an affront to the dignity of people but it can also be incredibly harmful for someone to see porn of themselves they did not make with someone else’s body.
This is a matter of human decency and consent. It is not negotiable.
As mentioned by @ram@lemmy.ca, this can also be used for other harmful things like CSAM which is genuinely terrifying.
I have to disagree (but won’t downvote!)
AI porn is creepy. In multiple ways!
But it’s also a natural evolution of what we’ve been doing as a species since before we were a species.
Does imagining a different partner while having sex or masturbating count? I would imagine most people would say, “no”.
How about if somebody draws a crude stick figure of somebody they met on the street? Unless you’re Randall Munroe, this is probably harmless too.
Now a highly skilled portrait artist paints a near replica of somebody he knows, but has never seen in the nude. They never mention their friend by name, but the output is lifelike and unmistakably them.
Maybe a digital artist finds a few social media pictures of a person and decided to test drive Krita and manipulates them into appearing nude.
Or, and this happened to me quite recently, you find your porn doppelganger. My spouse found mine and it ruined her alone time. And they really did look just like me! Taking that a step further, is it illegal to find somebody’s doppelganger and to dress them up so that they look more like their double?
Like you, I don’t want people like this in my life. But it feels like this is one of those slippery slopes that turns out to be an actual slippery slope.
You can’t make it illegal without some serious downstream effects.
If you did, the servers will just get hosted in an Eastern European country that is happy to lulwat at American warrants.
I don’t have any answers, just more Devil’s advocate-esque questions. If there was a way to make it illegal without any collateral damage, I’d be proudly behind you leading the charge. I just can’t imagine a situation where it wouldn’t get abused, a’la the DMCA.
I’m up voting just because I’m now wondering what xkcd fanservice would look like
You can’t share that though so while I still think it is immoral, it is also kind of impossible to know.
Those would be immoral and reprehensible. The law already protects against such cases on the basis of using someone’s likeness.
It’s harmful because it shares images of someone doing things they would never do. It’s not caricature, it’s simply a fabrication. It doesn’t provide criticism - it is simply erotic.
If the goal is to look like you, I would imagine it is possible to defend by law. Otherwise, it is simply coincidence. There’s no intent there.
I don’t think it is a stretch or slippery slope. Just as a picture is captured by a camera, a drawing is captured by a person or a machine.
Both should be the same and it is often already the case in many jurisdictions around the world when it comes to CSAM.
All of your arguments assume profit is the motive. Are you saying as long as no profit is made that it would be okay to do all of these things? (Ex. Self use only)
No. I think that it would still be bad if it were self-use because it is ultimately doing something that someone doesn’t consent to.
If you were to use this on yourself or someone consenting, I see no issues there - be kinky all you want.
Consent is the core foundation for me.
The reason why imagining someone is different is that it is often less intentional - thoughts are not actions.
Drawing someone to be similar to someone you know is very intentional. Even worse, there is a high likely chance that if you are drawing someone you know naked, you likely never asked for their consent because you know you wouldn’t get it.
deleted by creator
It’s not worse - it’s just as bad.
deleted by creator
That person just can’t grapple with any nuance, as they are afraid to let the sentence “ai child porn is less bad” cone out of their mouths
I don’t like grading evil for this very reason so I think I will refrain from doing so - thank you for catching me doing that. I will refrain from doing that.
That said, AI CSAM could enable other forms of abuse through blackmail. I can also see very harmful things happening to a child or teenager because people may share this material in a targeted way.
I think both are inhumane and disgusting.
deleted by creator
I call it evil because it is intentional and premeditated.
Trying to put everything on degrees is bound to show ignorance and imply that certain things are more acceptable than others.
I don’t want to hurt people with my ignorance and I do not want to tell someone that what they experienced is less bad than something else. They are bad and we’ll leave it at that.
I am working with this definition : “Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion”. There is a difference between human-made and humane.
deleted by creator
We can try to rationalize it, sure but I think that doing that generally is a disservice. I don’t want to make decisions based on this severity scale. The people who suffer from these problems are all equally deserving of help.