141–146 of 146 posts
I don't know how society will function when it's as easy to fake a video or image as it is to draw a stick figure. Hopefully it at least means that people view what happened here as akin to scribbling boobs on someone's photo, but we're not there yet apparently.
I hope we don't start getting xkcd fakes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an issue with male teenagers generating deepfakes of their female friends in their minds? What if they drew them? What if they photoshopped them? What if they had an AI make them? I suppose if I used such an uncharitable reading of your comment I would ask you're some kind of puritan supporter of thoughtcrime. Am I getting this wrong? Being curious about other people's bodies is part of the human experien…
Rape culture starts young. This needs to be nipped in the bud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It took some skill and time before to make anything passable as realistic. Enough skill and time to defeat a teenagers motivation. That's the difference. "make the person in this photo naked. No mistakes" Prompts lowered the bar. Even if you do have to install a local text to image model.
Does it even matter how realistic someone's fake porn is? Before computers people would cut out peoples faces and paste them onto playboy centerfolds. That sure wasn't perfect, but it didn't stop them from enjoying them enough to go through the trouble. Since perfect or not people aren't going to stop doing what they do, the fact that the fakes have gotten better is only beneficial since it allows for plausible denia…
Yes, from a victim impact perspective.
> Before computers people would cut out peoples faces and paste them onto playboy centerfolds. That sure wasn't perfect, but it didn't stop them
The effort did stop them. The problem wasn't even half as widespread. And those who were doing it were keeping it to themselves, the images weren't being auto-shared to Twitter and the targets tagged.
> the fact that the fakes have gotten better is only beneficial
[Victim testimony needed]
> At this point nobody should trust some random video
While there's a qualitative difference in harassment when using media that is either real or fake (clearly or not) the capacity for that media to be used for harassment purposes remains the same.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Models don't have to contain imagery of a thing to produce imagery of that thing - the canonical example is the pelican riding a bicycle. Model makers, arguably, are like pencil manufacturers but in a World of good artists. I think you can hold people to account for what they help to create, but not what they have potential to do. Now, if models were trained on any csam, of course, the model's owners should be held y…
And I think it would be an interesting question of discovery to determine if the models were or weren't trained on CSAM. (Diffusors were trained on both pelicans and bicycles, you know...) I still think there's a lot of legal and IP landmines lying in wait from the Hoover-esque pre-training eras
Agreed on your second remark. If I'm still around it will be interesting to look back on this period on twenty years and think about how things should have been handled.