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

AI real-time human full-body photo generator

generated.photos

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 421 posts

Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator

#371

Post by dontupvoteme »

hnbad wrote: post #370
dontupvoteme wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call it sitedoxxing then or urldoxxing. It's the same attack, to deanonymize, to hunt people down from the internet because you don't like what they say or do. Germany is the only country in the world with that Impresseum policy because of it's highly leagalistic Prussian background, and you would find that many in the hacking community (e.g. CCC) take huge issue with it

The hacking community takes issue with it because it is overly broad and applies to sites any reasonable person would consider personal and non-commercial. The infamous precedent were early 2000s era personal homepages with banner ads on them to pay for the hosting. The presence of ads made them commercial and thus subject to the Impressumspflicht . The CCC has a strong anarchist tendency unlike the US tech bubble wh…

Fair enough, I'm just very aware of the doxx culture we live in and the insanity of the modern internet.

You're right legally, but obviously the GDPR is not fully followed -- Big Corpos just ignore it and pay the fine, and small companies can skirt it.

I don't understand your overall point about "data" though. Do you mean for free usage when people accept cookies from their logging, or just for customers of the API since you make an account?

In any case it looks like the FAQ now links to the parent company, but I could have imagined it just being a guy who didn't want to get doxxed or wanted to stay private.

I think being able to make a website or tool or thing and say "hey check this out" and stay anonymous is a key part of the internet, and frankly I don't mind if they make a small amount of money on the side. I know this is probably Ketzerei in Germany but in Anglo countries it's sometimes notoriously hard to track down corporate structure to people and such.

Germany is definitely incredibly pro copyright though so that probably plays a role.

Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator

#372

Post by the-dude »

dotancohen wrote: post #155
mrguyorama wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at the poses, it feels optimized for generating porn, but one example someone showed had a child's face (good god please don't let your "AI" system generate child anything if you want to sell it for porn purposes), and another user noted that their attempt error'd out because it "detected nudity", even though other users get given a nude model by default.

I don't know if the thing in the crotch is a penis or a scrotum, but it is definitely NSFW: https://images.generated.photos/0wV1dBnZ15hGneEfqfZT7SdEIill... My prompt was simply "Standing in front of a rocket.".

You asked for a phallus symbol, it gave you phallus symbols.

Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator

#373

Post by rerdavies »

bruce343434 wrote: post #307
rerdavies wrote: post #228

I couldn't help noticing that half the female poses are seriously CFM ("Come hither"), whereas the male poses are The Thinker, or Man-spreading, or other things that manly men do. But then I tried generating some male images. Turns out that The Thinker can be seriously CFM as well. For some reason, all the images I have generated so far are unexpectedly sexualized even I when i try to give it completely benign prompt…

>CFM Cubic feet per minute?

Come ** me.

Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator

#374

Post by CP3f6kMA »

justinclift wrote: post #332
mmh0000 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're basically there right now betweem Deepnude[1] and Photoshop. [1] (NSFW, seriously.) https://deepnude.cc/

Doesn't seem to actually be a thing though, as they seem to require a US$100 payment up front in order to actually "generate" an image. That's pretty much the behaviour of a scam website.

I have seen ads on other websites which link to working versions.

Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator

#375

Post by phyzome »

joshgachnang wrote: post #184
phyzome wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of now, copyright of AI-generated images is not a settled matter . But I think smart money is on the courts coming down on the side of copyright being applicable. (If you're thinking of the recent court case, no, that was unrelated; some guy was trying to pull a stunt and the court did not actually rule on the thing you think they did.)

Do you have a link or something re: your second point for those of us who might not know?

No. But courts have continued to rule that new technologies allow humans to create works of art that fall under copyright, and I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do so.

Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator

#378

Post by MacsHeadroom »

93po wrote: post #356
mgbmtl wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Canada, CP drawings are illegal ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Ca... )

I believe anything depicting CP is illegal in the US as well

The justice department defines it as anything depicting a real identifiable minor. Fictive persons are notably exempt from this definition (regardless of realism of the depiction). Canada is different in that regard.

Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator

#379

Post by efreak »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #351
bloak wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see much to be frightened of. It has always been possible to create convincing fake photographs, at a price, while a photograph on its own (without proper provenance) has not usually been treated as important evidence (though there are some famous exceptions, e.g. Duchess of Argyll). The new technology just makes it cheaper for mischievous people to make fakes, and easier for people to dismiss an unprovenance…

> It has always been possible to create convincing fake photographs... Not really, depending on who you are "convincing". Up until relatively recently it was usually quite easy for photo experts (and often even less than experts, just people trained to look for certain "tells") to detect digital manipulation. But, on the flip side, yes, digital manipulation has occurred in the past, and I think it's a mistake to disc…

When one says fake photographs, that is not the same as saying digital manipulation. Photo manipulation is older than the transistor. See https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/09/28/before-phot... for some examples; these are admittedly artistic manipulations and fairly obvious, but it's entirely possible to apply the same techniques in other ways.
Post reply on HN