Does everything need to be boiled down to a consent argument now? When an artist uses his imagination to make a political cartoon about a senator is that a violation of the senators consent? Is this any different than an artist depicting a person in a way they see fit?
Your comment would suggest any use of imagination to make a thing that doesn't get written approval by all parties even thought of is also a consent issue: if you fantasize about a crush you are violating them, and any type of parody whatsoever is too.
>Sit this one out. It's not a discussion for you.
While being incredibly condescending, you neglected to ask for consent to think about this person's ability to participate in the conversation, maybe this isn't a discussion for you either.
If you can't distinguish between using a public figure's likeness for a political cartoon vs. AI porn (or between a private fantasy and a public post), then maybe you should sit this one out too.
Revenge porn is bad. Imaginary revenge porn is just as bad.
It's quite alarmist to suggest altered images the most popular woman in the world are classified as "revenge porn."
People in popular culture have been used by artists to their liking since the beginning of art. Don't compare this to someone posting naked pictures of an ex who has a completely private life and doesn't spend their entire being trying to be in front of every camera possible, usually in outfits that make it quite easy for the imagination to extrapolate into the pornographic.
So other commenters have a direction to debate you in.
My response, to both:
good luck putting this cat back in the bag.
Whatever harm these people are doing, they'll continue to do it "in private"; be aware of the "new normal" and adjust accordingly seems like the only pragmatic approach.
It's literally just art in bad taste.
That's not a new experience for most people on the Internet.
Also, instead of rushing around to change the goalposts (from the Swift story), why didn't you reply to any of the statements or questions I put forward?
If you're only here to pontificate, not curiously discuss your position, you're gonna have a bad time.
And what personal attack might this be? A reflection of his comment is not a personal attack. If he is seeking non-consensual deepfake porn when the issue is consent regarding the creation of said deepfake non-consensual porn then that should be highlighted.
Are you defending the non-consensual deepfake porn and people who want to seek it out? If so, that's a reason for me to leave HN and let others know that's what the official stance is.
"Sit this one out. It's not a discussion for you" seems clearly a personal attack and the sort of thing we ban commenters for if they do it repeatedly.
I was thinking today about an Instagram or Twitter like clone that only allowed pictures taken through the app to be posted. You could use a model like the one TikTok released recently to do a depth map of the image and make sure it wasn't just a picture of a picture.
How would you bootstrap such a thing? I imagine offering a fraternity or sorority a portion of the company to get their members posting and then ad blitzing their campus and hope to spread from there.
Please don't. We don't need more closed ecosystems and app-only technology. I don't believe that you'll be able to actually secure it so in the end we'll just have more software that doesn't respect the users and not be any better off for it
Doesn't the Tiktok model creates a fake depth map from what the picture would be so if you fed it into a picture of a picture you'd actually just get a depth map of the original picture not a flat plane.
You'd need to verify through the actual device camera sensors.
Most of it is gone from Twitter after Swift fans started doxxing the posters involved, including posting full names, email address, education, and physical address
I got curious yesterday and had a search around. Most of it is floating around 4chan /b/. Most of it is low quality and quite obviously AI. There was one funny/cursed one with Trump that I laughed at of slightly higher photorealism.
Not at all. AI generated images are— for all intents and purposes— are real images as viewed from the average viewer. There is no distinguishable feature here that is different from "revenge Porn", where revengeporn is a blanket term for an individual distributing non-consensual images whereby average viewers would assume the individual of the attack is the individual in the content.
The argument that it's just "photoshopping" is so outdated— and blatantly ignores the advancements in AI and deepfake technologies— that it frames your argument in a such a bad-faith position that it isn't worth engaging with you. Modern AI can generate highly convincing and realistic content, making it distinct from traditional image editing.
I've seen plenty of photoshopped pictures that look just as realistic as a real photo. There's also the possibility to make realistic images in Blender and Unreal Engine, among other 3d programs. It's just trendy to hate on AI things these days, even when they do the same things that have been possible without AI for decades. Stop with the pseudoscience rationalizations on why AI is worse.
Good to know doxxing is okay so long as it's against someone you don't like because they insulted a celebrity people have an unhealthy attachment to.
Hard to see how this isn't "rules for thee but not for me" just applied to an act that ruins people's lives. But hey, they typed in a sentence or two into a chat prompt and posted the resulting image, they must deserve it.
Until legal systems fully catch up with the ramifications of such immoral actions, social pressures— such as doxing— is totally acceptable to reduce the engagement of such disgusting behaviors becoming mainstream.
Normal, respectable, people would never engage in such behavior and those who choose to do so should feel the full force of social pressures to lesson the chance of others following suit.
Your defense— of such disgusting behavior— suggests that you are implicitly ok with sexual assault, rape, or general degradation of women. You should seek help with your view and I hope the women in your life know they are in danger.
Drawing a line from posting an AI generated image to being okay with rape is psychotic and certainly not the moral high ground you think it is. Nor is defending doxxing because of an unhealthy attachment with a celebrity who you feel insulted personally on their behalf.
Print out this exchange and show it to the women in your life (if there are any), then let everyone here know their response. Your abhorrent behavior is only protected by the anonymity of the web. Seek help.
You keep attacking me thinking I'm a) a man and b) am the the "boogy" kind of man that fits the target of all this overeactive nonsense where having arguments about free speech somehow brings up rape. Hence the word "psychotic" not feeling out of place.
But just as well, while we're making unfounded assumptions: you should show this exchange to the only woman in your life. You could tweet it to her and show her how you so valiently defended her honor and solidified how important you are to her. Of course she would never see it and never care because that's how parasocial relationships work. No amount of hystrionics and virtue signaling will ever get her attention or her validation or the supplanted parental love that arguments like this suggest you desperately need.
Lol you know at times like this I have to remember the words of my great great grandmother: "Never argue with a swiftie, because they're fucking insane and too dumb to know it"
I can kinda see both sides here. I definitely wouldn’t want people using AI to maliciously depict me beside Trump etc. However, I also don’t think people should be punished for thoughts or art, be it human or AI.
My own solution is to simply not appear online but I understand that’s not possible for celebrities.
How would you propose we solve the problem of AI generated desecration, if it even is a problem?
43 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 96.3 ms ] threadIt’s could be a desire to check whether this is intrusive or an IP issue.
Your comment would suggest any use of imagination to make a thing that doesn't get written approval by all parties even thought of is also a consent issue: if you fantasize about a crush you are violating them, and any type of parody whatsoever is too.
>Sit this one out. It's not a discussion for you.
While being incredibly condescending, you neglected to ask for consent to think about this person's ability to participate in the conversation, maybe this isn't a discussion for you either.
Revenge porn is bad. Imaginary revenge porn is just as bad.
People in popular culture have been used by artists to their liking since the beginning of art. Don't compare this to someone posting naked pictures of an ex who has a completely private life and doesn't spend their entire being trying to be in front of every camera possible, usually in outfits that make it quite easy for the imagination to extrapolate into the pornographic.
So other commenters have a direction to debate you in.
My response, to both: good luck putting this cat back in the bag.
Whatever harm these people are doing, they'll continue to do it "in private"; be aware of the "new normal" and adjust accordingly seems like the only pragmatic approach.
It's literally just art in bad taste.
That's not a new experience for most people on the Internet.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/generative-ai-images-child-s...
So is this "literally just art in bad taste"?
Seems you've made it art, even if it wasn't before.
If you're only here to pontificate, not curiously discuss your position, you're gonna have a bad time.
No one consents to capitalism or other norms of their culture (born into it)
We can come up with philosophical ideals but they’re meaningless given reality
We all see how society treats each other and yet we keep giving in to reproductive urges
Our animalistic nature is a fractal in that it’s always there, has been since humans came about, will be as long as they exist
Words associations, technology change fast. Meat suits change slow.
Usually you don’t see it but when you aren’t looking it still exists.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Are you defending the non-consensual deepfake porn and people who want to seek it out? If so, that's a reason for me to leave HN and let others know that's what the official stance is.
How would you bootstrap such a thing? I imagine offering a fraternity or sorority a portion of the company to get their members posting and then ad blitzing their campus and hope to spread from there.
Plenty of competitors can stand up a usable, competitive app.
You'd need to verify through the actual device camera sensors.
I got curious yesterday and had a search around. Most of it is floating around 4chan /b/. Most of it is low quality and quite obviously AI. There was one funny/cursed one with Trump that I laughed at of slightly higher photorealism.
We're still talking about Photoshopped pics on the internet, for all intents and purposes.
The argument that it's just "photoshopping" is so outdated— and blatantly ignores the advancements in AI and deepfake technologies— that it frames your argument in a such a bad-faith position that it isn't worth engaging with you. Modern AI can generate highly convincing and realistic content, making it distinct from traditional image editing.
Hard to see how this isn't "rules for thee but not for me" just applied to an act that ruins people's lives. But hey, they typed in a sentence or two into a chat prompt and posted the resulting image, they must deserve it.
Normal, respectable, people would never engage in such behavior and those who choose to do so should feel the full force of social pressures to lesson the chance of others following suit.
Your defense— of such disgusting behavior— suggests that you are implicitly ok with sexual assault, rape, or general degradation of women. You should seek help with your view and I hope the women in your life know they are in danger.
But just as well, while we're making unfounded assumptions: you should show this exchange to the only woman in your life. You could tweet it to her and show her how you so valiently defended her honor and solidified how important you are to her. Of course she would never see it and never care because that's how parasocial relationships work. No amount of hystrionics and virtue signaling will ever get her attention or her validation or the supplanted parental love that arguments like this suggest you desperately need.
My own solution is to simply not appear online but I understand that’s not possible for celebrities.
How would you propose we solve the problem of AI generated desecration, if it even is a problem?