Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#41

Post by yakitori »

bradbeattie wrote: post #14

I'm on the fence on this one. If I draw a stick figure and put your name above it, is that unethical? What if I add a speech bubble saying something risqué? What if I'm a talented artist and I draw something pretty life-like? I don't see the lines here being too clear without claiming down on all expression.

> I'm on the fence on this one.

What's there to be on the fence about? It's terrible and a infringement of free speech. But reddit has the right to ban it as a private company. It just make reddit look terrible and hypocritical.

But considering they are planning on IPOing, I guess they have to sell out.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#42

Post by superkuh »

llukas wrote: post #17
excalibur wrote: post #13

Fake porn of celebrities has been prevalent on the Internet for a long time. I don't have precise statistics, but I think it might predate the web. For the most part it hasn't been particularly controversial. Now that advances in technology have significantly improved the quality, everybody suddenly has a problem with it. Let's back this up a few steps. You're an actor, you appear on television. By being filmed and a…

> And post them online. Mass redistribution of somebody image is not a "right".

Luckily in the free world we don't need "rights" in order to do things. In third world countries people are often put in prison for photoshoping their leaders. Hopefully this trend towards that kind of authoritarianism doesn't continue in the west.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#43

Post by yakitori »

Cynddl wrote: post #16
downer72 wrote: post #12

Ban all you want, it’s not illegal, and silly to suggest as much. Here’s a picture I drew of your mom. Look at those stink lines. Arrest me.

It can actually be considered as a form of harassement or defamation. While it might be a gray area in the US, it is likely not going to be the same in Europe.

Europe is fairly backwards when it comes to free speech. A guy who made a silly video of his dog doing a nazi salute is getting charged in britain. Someone who criticized the turkish leader almost got prosecuted by the german government. Poland just enacted a law where if you call something a "polish death camp", you can be jailed.

Russia loved europe's censorship laws so much, they copied it.

For some ridiculous reason, people think europe is the bastion of freedom and human rights. There is a reason why these people gave us nazism and communism. Europeans have no understanding of what human rights and especially free speech means. These are american ideals alien to european shores.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#44

Post by prepend »

typomatic wrote: post #25
excalibur wrote: post #13

Fake porn of celebrities has been prevalent on the Internet for a long time. I don't have precise statistics, but I think it might predate the web. For the most part it hasn't been particularly controversial. Now that advances in technology have significantly improved the quality, everybody suddenly has a problem with it. Let's back this up a few steps. You're an actor, you appear on television. By being filmed and a…

Usually people use the slippery slope to avoid things, not encourage a descent into depravity, but to each their own. In any case, you shouldn't pretend as if this is morally okay just because you can focus in on each individual step and find a way to justify it. There are a lot of crimes that clearly fall into this bucket: stalking, for example. Any one interaction may be innocent, but it's the sum total of actions…

This is an interesting final opinion. Can you explain your reasoning? I’d like to understand more about why you dislike this?

This idea of altering images has always confused me. When I was a kid, I got a scanner and a printer. The first thing I did was take a picture of a Battletech Griffin 55 ton battlemech (a giant war robot) and replaced the robot head with that of my mom, titling it “Grifmom.” I thought it was awesome and she burst into tears and beat me terribly. I never understood why. And this didn’t have any nudity or offensive material, just a normal face on a robot body.

Perhaps this is related to your aversion?

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#45

Post by gamblor956 »

excalibur wrote: post #13

Fake porn of celebrities has been prevalent on the Internet for a long time. I don't have precise statistics, but I think it might predate the web. For the most part it hasn't been particularly controversial. Now that advances in technology have significantly improved the quality, everybody suddenly has a problem with it. Let's back this up a few steps. You're an actor, you appear on television. By being filmed and a…

What if they cut your face out and place it over a Playboy centerfold? Same deal. Several technogical innovations later, here we are. Fundamentally, nothing has changed.

You have two images, one physically overlaying the other...it's not even remotely the same thing as a single integrated image, technically or legally. Integrating the (edit) images (end edit) changes everything.

Fundamentally, people are still 100% within their rights to combine images legally obtained in this way. And post them online.

Completely. False. You may have the right to combine images for your own personal use (in the US, ignoring discussions of CP), but you absolutely do not have the right to distribute those images, and the associated tort actions both pre-date and have survived the First Amendment.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#46

Post by dkersten »

feelandcoffee wrote: post #32

What's scare me the most it's not the porn. But the fact that make this kind of tech it's kinda-avaliable to anyone with a GPU and a few hours of learning and training. The only thing that make this not a treat to your regular folk it's the fact that needs a lot of images references to make the model, but imagine a politician or activist, they have a lot of images on the net; So this can take the fake news to another…

> if this happens the news media ... will probably not take shady videos seriously without verification

Because mainstream media is great at fact checking all the bullshit they report on? Some do, sure, but there is a lot of shit on mainstream news.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#47

Post by [deleted] »

falcolas wrote: post #29
codingdave wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people are still 100% within their rights to combine images legally obtained in this way. And post them online. Are they? If you distribute movies and media to the public, you normally are breaking laws. (Hence the infamous FBI warning on movies for a couple decades now.) Likewise, you cannot just use people's likeness in marketing and other public uses without their permission. So I'm not at all sure that just bec…

> Likewise, you cannot just use people's likeness in marketing and other public uses without their permission. Tell that to Prince and Peter Cushing. ;)

[deleted]

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#48

Post by danso »

falcolas wrote: post #27
NegativeK wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you honestly think that using someone else's copywritten material to transform yet another person's likeness into something that very few people would consent to (when you almost certainly didn't try to get consent) is a fair use right, legally or socially?

Well, it is definitely transformative. In fact, nothing of the original work really survives the transformation. You can't merely copyright your likeness. As for socially, consider this: They have used the likeness of Bruce Lee, Carrie Fischer, Prince, and Peter Cushing in commercial works, undoubtedly without prior consent. We also have "public" nude photos taken and distributed of celebrities on a regular basis (pa…

> You can't merely copyright your likeness.

Which country are we talking about? Because that is not the case in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...

> They have used the likeness of Bruce Lee, Carrie Fischer, Prince, and Peter Cushing in commercial works, undoubtedly without prior consent.

Who is "they"? Who has been using Fischer's and Cushing's likenesses without contractual agreements?

> We also have "public" nude photos taken and distributed of celebrities on a regular basis (paparazzi)

Public photography has legal protections. Doesn't mean that if you took a photo of Obama at the gym you can use the photo in an ad campaign that suggests his approval of commercial usage.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#49

Post by mentos »

feelandcoffee wrote: post #32

What's scare me the most it's not the porn. But the fact that make this kind of tech it's kinda-avaliable to anyone with a GPU and a few hours of learning and training. The only thing that make this not a treat to your regular folk it's the fact that needs a lot of images references to make the model, but imagine a politician or activist, they have a lot of images on the net; So this can take the fake news to another…

I think 'Deepfake' is a great name for an episode of Black Mirror.

Re: Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities

#50

Post by fellellor »

So glad that they banned this crap. This is actually a fun project to get started with deep learning as you paste Nicholas Cage in every movie you can imagine. Unfortunately it's been dominated by all this porn creepiness. Hopefully the discussion sorrounding this will get friendlier from now on.
Post reply on HN