Show HN: Pornpen.ai – AI-Generated Porn (pornpen.ai)
Hey HN, I've been working on https://pornpen.ai, a site for generating adult images. Please only visit the site if you are 18+ and willing to look at NSFW images.
This site is an experiment using newer text-to-image models. I explicitly removed the ability to specify custom text to avoid harmful imagery from being generated. New tags will be added once the prompt-engineering algorithm is fine-tuned further. If the servers are overloaded, take a look at the feed and search pages to look through past results.
For comments/suggestions/feedback please visit https://reddit.com/r/pornpen
Enjoy!
1,142 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 1790 ms ] threadGood effort but... it just isn't there yet.
for that matter, the catfishing aspect for thirsty people make this an interesting evolution. What a strange and fascinating world we're building for ourselves here.
Someone email this guy. We cracked it.
In any case, I think you'd be quite surprised at the diversity of people outside of you.
It was only a matter of time, but yeah, I thought the same. The internet is pretty predictable, when deepfakes images were a thing I thought it wouldn't be long before they used the fappening images to make videos and after that ML designed specifically for this would soon follow.
Porn has always driven much of tech, so its nor surprising, either.
Now for serious. I have always found it unintentionally hilarious how many people appear to believe that porniness resides in the object, rather than in the viewer. Carrying on with categorizing this thing as sexual, and that thing as non-sexual. That only works for legal and regulatory purposes, sillies, and then only barely!
https://cdn.pornpen.ai/146136F0946B4772.jpeg
https://pornpen.ai/view/BRKQgdJG6vabTZk8eXDl
https://cdn.pornpen.ai/A7CCFC8DD7D1DE07.jpeg
https://pornpen.ai/view/5fkq15n2JOmv3LoOkoWb (counts+)
https://pornpen.ai/view/7Ls0XZkZ1k5buFv1jHrL (arms+)
https://pornpen.ai/view/csBHwcRn9pI8eLDMUdAe (armboob)
https://pornpen.ai/view/M4w9ONr64GcPK0MWSoay (uncategorized)
https://pornpen.ai/view/Cpl0UlPPyvfHo3da0mX3 (floating_hand)
https://pornpen.ai/view/GFgCOCt2qrE10ehXbpv5 (arms+)
https://pornpen.ai/view/hqwHZijXWKd91751qLFz (frankenstein)
https://pornpen.ai/view/8IHZQhmrtsrQgrWJkVt2 (armbod)
https://pornpen.ai/view/4kQEblb4jMDnYbRO2Usb (handboobs)
https://pornpen.ai/view/KfPMk7343jnz5TCtFa7d (mermaid)
https://pornpen.ai/view/JfGMeX3wuwaO8ih6MeYZ (escher_arms+sooty_teeth)
https://pornpen.ai/view/iQ6wcgDl8o53H2nYMFyE (arms-)
https://pornpen.ai/view/lDIeOW0ugHdvticqbueN (gumby)
https://pornpen.ai/view/Jz9yETbDtt2ajZoAdgg2 (few_fingers)
https://pornpen.ai/view/tS0qyJnK4dM6k916Sion (amputee)
https://pornpen.ai/view/REnGhHyX8XnHjuEwUYKt (counts)
https://pornpen.ai/view/qHM8vSCUJKwkehBoF8z3 (zombie)
https://pornpen.ai/view/tBJr3CGqNBUXKq9F8bOZ (zombie)
https://cdn.pornpen.ai/75335336C30915C3.jpeg
for someone out there, "Uncanny valley porn" is their kink.
https://xkcd.com/598/
Uh.
Mistakes have been made.
It shouldn't be surprising to see quick future advances in this domain as most of the porn material is usually available free, easily scrapable and extremely low risk of copyright litigation.
IMHO, the real game-changer as with normal art will be some sort of reliable assistant tool to quickly generate various components. Further finishing touches can be then easily done in Photoshop or similar software. Sometimes along this we will probably see results in 3D art or animations.
but for a different reason than now!
sometimes porn fails a copyright infringement claim because it can be argued that the particular piece of work doesn't satisfy Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution backing the copyright concept "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
It's still unsettled case law because it's only troll law firms that are challenging on behalf of porn copyright holders, and they never appeal.
How did you design the backend? What kind of server are you using?
And people said there'd be flying cars.
Hilarious.
Citation necessary.
Vast majority of new cases of "B" are likely to be cultural. i.e. White women in HS/Uni. Declared, but never expressed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orienta...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301639075_Sexual_Or...
This one says 20%, according to polls...
https://news.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population...
Kinsey said 10% : https://www.hli.org/resources/prevalence-of-homosexuality-in...
5% is low, then, for some. But it's far more than OP's 1%, which was my point.
To me that kinda feels like if it was made illegal then you are basically acting as the thought police.
Edit: are people just uncomfortable talking about this or do they think downvoting is going to somehow prevent it?
To think that porn reduces sexual tendencies may be true (in the short to mid term), but eventually, as the addiction intensifies, those hooked have the urge to seek more novel, more aggressive versions of it (in reel or for real).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography#Sexual_...
Took months to kick the habit, completely.
Alcoholism is pretty serious, but you wouldn't say "beer is an addiction". Same with video game addiction and many other things.
I find it a pretty prude generalization: it's a catch phrase for people who get offended by sex.
(This is tongue in cheek. I'm not upset.)
OTOH, I think the risk of CSAM from this kind of thing is overblown, because either (1) it wouldn't actually involve real children in any way, or (2) the model would have to be train on actual CSAM, which there are already laws against.
If no humans are harmed by it at any stage, then how's it any different from the CGI murders all over movies and TV? In the absence of harm, the only reason to consider it a crime is that it's disgusting. But we don't prosecute people for having sick thoughts, just for acting on them. If you take the child and abuse out of the equation, the only argument left is that seeing CSAM (artificial or not) is a "gateway drug" to commiting child abuse. If that's the case then why shouldn't we prosecute people for watching Dexter, on the grounds that they're on their way to becoming serial killers?
You say that, but created from scratch drawn material is illegal in some countries. What you've stated is a nice ideal but often doesn't match reality, and I'm on the fence as to whether that's a necessarily a bad thing in this case (I'm not sure we really know enough about sexual drive and how it interacts with the subconscious to know whether it's actually benign or has a societal cost).
Homosexuality is illegal in some countries.
The second part of my comment was more along the lines as to whether exposure to material such as this (material depicting children sexually) affects desire for material such as this, or behavior, for those that already desire it and/or have urges along those lines. I don't know the answer to that, and so an unwilling to make a blanket statement that it should or should not be allowed. There are plenty of things we restrict as a society through our government because we think it's bad for the whole. Sometimes there's little real reason for that, sometimes there is, and thus I'm on the fence until I know more.
My layman's understanding is that some aspects of sexuality are not well defined until puberty and what you're exposed to at that time, and then those are fairly fixed for life. If that's true, there are aspects to consider beyond an individual's desire, and a nuanced informed decision is worthwhile. It's possible the right answer here is not just "freedom of speech and expression" nor "protect the children", but a middle path with the most benefits and least drawbacks.
It's frustrating not to be able to know why someone downvoted a comment, but it's the nature of the beast. Sometimes people think we should require explanations, but you can't change the way people are by demanding they jump through a hoop.
If you see unfairly downvoted comments, give them a corrective upvote (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Other users will hopefully do that too.
A lot of the time, that happens and then posts like this end up as uncollected garbage in the thread, complaining about something that doesn't exist anymore.
One might be a victimless crime.
The other never can be.
> To think that porn reduces sexual tendencies may be true (in the short to mid term), but eventually, as the addiction intensifies, those hooked have the urge to seek more novel, more aggressive versions of it (in reel or for real).
and if so, it's a joke about the reefer madness movie and moral panic
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
US did that for a few years, as well, until the Supreme Court struck it down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...
So as far as the output goes, there's already some kind of precedent in most countries. Or are you asking about the model that performs the generation?
US convicted for written obscenity just in 2013: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/05/20/court-finds-fantasy-stor...
https://www.networkworld.com/article/2276921/porn-producer-s...
Nobody wants to be a pedophile, but if you are unfortunately hardwired that way the impulses are impossible to ignore—similar to any other sexual impulse that 'healthy' adults have.
I think the goal is how to create the least amount of harm for children, and it's theoretically interesting to consider the possibility that machine generated CP could be used to ultimately end the real-life CP black market.
I'm sure this won't ever happen because nobody wants to touch this subject with a 10-foot pole; and our species tends to favor solutions that are idealistic rather than rational in many ways. But the European approach to criminal justice is something like: "humans are not perfect, and we can't fix them, so let's try to engineer solutions which make living together more pleasant". Nobody likes an icky solution like this, but the alternative is a lot of children suffering (although I'm not saying those two options are perfectly substitutable).
On the other hand, it could be a completely stupid idea outright. Just an interesting thing to think about.
that's not how this tech works.
Did you think actual guinea pigs had to be trained to do household chores for these pictures to be generated? (dailywrong.com/new-course-teaches-guinea-pigs-household-chores/)
I had a lot of fun creating pictures of llamas in space. I'm pretty sure no llamas have ever walked on the moon.
creating a llama wearing a space suit and walking on the moon is a lot harder than filling out the very limited amount of skin hidden by a swimming suit.
In that way our species is very primitive. We're trigger happy in our outrage and often unable to focus on a larger shared goal, much to our own demise.
Have people into bestiality to play in their VR worlds and see if it suffocates demand or increases demand and we see spillover into the real world. (find a jurisdiction where the above is tolerated)
Maybe Thailand can produce some data given their apparent tolerance for certain behaviors.
It's very hard to predict how this will shake out. I personally doubt that looking at extreme/contraband porn is a good strategy for coping with highly illegal desires but obsessive behaviors aren't something that's easy to model reliably. Considering that weaponizing false claims of predatory behavior as a coercive social/political tactic is a big thing at the moment, you probably shouldn't hold your breath hoping for any sort of consensus to emerge in the short term.
It’s like lolicon, sure, you can sit there and pretend it’s a 2000 year old demon warrior… but she is still dressed, posed and drawn to mimic a small child.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a conundrum, that’s for sure. I hate the idea of the thought police. I love free speech. But in the end, I believe any material, whether it is “art” or computer generated, should be barred if it contains images that can be construed as a child in a sexual act (ancient art gets a pass?). Lolicon does not stop pedophiles from being pedophiles. Nor would this. It would simply act as a gateway and a scapegoat imho.
I'm not sure I want all of them to close access to these tools, stop providing open source capabilities, or prevent specific keywords like Dall-E does, but it's the easy solution for providers. This is why we can't have nice things (there's so many interesting, funny and beautiful things that aren't illegal or even controversial but that are blocked as side-effects of Dall-E's restrictions).
https://pornpen.ai/view/5fkq15n2JOmv3LoOkoWb
For those who don't want to click, two belly buttons, two nipple on one breast, dead black eyes, older head on younger body.
In any case, since the training data here does not feature children, this particular model would be useless for that.
From the fact that weaboos tend to claim their favorite lolis are 9000 year old dragons or whatever, I'm guessing it's already legally fraught to trade drawings of CP. I'm guessing AI generated images would fall in the same category, though where responsibility falls I'm not as clear on. The person who input in such a way as to try to generate CP? The platform the generator is hosted on? Whoever got the training data and did the training? I feel like the person seeking CP is a clear answer but society is looking to hold facebook, twitter, and others responsible for content on their sites so I'm not as sure.
At which point the moral dimension clarifies: creating an incentive to abuse children to create better models for simulating child abuse is the exact same reason posession of CP is illegal to start with. And since it won't be possible to prove any particular model without perfect providence wasn't produced this way, their use will just be illegal.
This is, realistically, also the problem with just pornography generating models in general, and all of these models in total: if there's illegal data in the input set, what does that mean?
I suspect the next hurdle with them is going to be license compliance-enabled training - models which can prove any given output has at most a certain type of license and providence on input data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley
Is it the mere fact of someone being aroused by children that makes child pornography offensive to society, or is it our belief that the creation of such materials necessary involves some degree of exploitation? If the latter, what about the well-documented risks of exploitation of consenting adult pornographic performers? Does access to pornography increase or decrease adults' tendencies to engage in unsanctioned sexual acts?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here but your post kind of reads like “child sexual abuse material is equivalent to porn made by consenting adults.” Posing that as a philosophical “what if” and then moving on isn’t very different from just stating that as an opinion.
I am not really interested in engaging on this topic, as the sort of “Debate me!”-style hot take is (in my experience) not usually offered in good faith, rather it’s more often some sort of rhetorical dick measuring contest amongst internet strangers.
The position that “things are equivalent in the case that I get to define all of the words “ isn’t the dialectical Judo throw that you think it is, buddy. It does not inspire confidence that a person is being serious.
(This is legal in some countries, at least.)
So we should discuss it as an ethical problem because it's going to become practical and affordable far sooner than most people think. I would bet money it's already been tried and maybe done successfully, but for obvious reasons not advertised.
Arguably, there are also lesser harms from consumption of it, but even so harmless generation of to-order child porn that collapsed the value of the harmfully generated kind by being indistinguishable from it would probably be a net win.
(Of course, with the techniques currently used, that would require a large corpus of the harmfully generated kind to work from; but one could imagine further developments in ML that allow better generalization that would allow that without any actual abuse images.)
I opted for dudes not gals. Part personal preference, partly because I happened to get my hands on an enormous dataset of hot shirtless guys taking selfies.
The initial results were rather poor: https://i.imgur.com/npzDcCL.jpg
That's around when I realized how important the training data really is. Too much variation in pose. So I trained a model that detected the face, nipples, and belly button, and aligned them vertically with that. Then I briefly skimmed over the dataset manually, and deleted anything that just varied too much from the median, in a rather arbitrary way.
Results were better: https://i.imgur.com/bS7ERC6.jpg
So I just let it churn away for a week, heating up the basement. Some final results with narrow truncation and style transfer: https://i.imgur.com/rhnWnpK.jpg
One thing I find intriguing is how bland those men are, really. Oh, beautiful, but too classically beautiful. In a sense, StyleGAN is a compression algorithm, and highly truncated outputs are something like a median of the inputs. So the above reflect a sort of "average" idealized image, that contains the traits most commonly found, in the media I trained it with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> I think this just might not be your cup of tea. That's fine. We all have our preferences.
I don't see how I could be any nicer.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I feel like you're ignoring your own guidelines. Please lead by example.
Besides that, you don't need to go on about someone's putative lack of understanding in order to make your substantive points.
In any case, I'll leave it here.
I fully believe you care and are trying. I also understand there will always be subjective ambiguity and that's fine. In the past we have disagreed and I have later come to acknowledge I was wrong. But if you keep pointing towards rules you don't live by yourself you're undermining the quality of this forum. And I acknowledge mistakes happen and that's fine. But it really feels different lately.
So if you truly care about the quality of HN, do yourself a favor and be more introspective with your moderation. Especially when you are the only person who believes I am being unruly here (as far as I can tell). I'm not saying this to attack you. I'm saying this as someone who has loved this forum for years but is worried about it getting worse.
Cheers.
Interpretation depends on past experiences and associations. Since everyone's are unique, no two people will always share the same interpretations. It gets worse when all we have are little bits of text to understand each other through. For example, if you had spoken those words and I had heard your tone of voice, it's quite possible I would have interpreted you differently.
On the other hand: you can't go strictly by intent, either, because intent is internal to the person whose intent it is. No one else has access to that (we're not mind readers) so the burden is on the commenter to disambiguate it.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I give up. I assume you're just going to ban me anyway.
There's zero question of banning you for something like that.
For what it's worth, I really wasn't saying those things about HN out of pettiness or bitterness. Thank you for engaging with me. Cheers.
https://i.imgur.com/bS7ERC6.jpg
you show one fellow with a smartphone stabbed through the chest, plus a headphone cord fused into his forearm veins.
When you "let it churn away for a week," which of the following is more likely:
1. Smartphone Stab Wound Guys decrease in likelihood
2. More realistic-looking smartphone stabs
In either case it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in self-driving cars.
“Version 10.2 can detect children crossing the road with 97% accuracy, and collides with them dead on at the same rate. Those well publicised close calls are now a thing of the past!”
The bad news: when we do, it's unfathomable how anything but a computer could do this
I feel like this is burying the lede. I'm very curious where you sourced this training data.