AI generated images and videos are not the thing to fear

Pictures and voice stuff has been suspicious for a long time.  That is not knew at all.  What is knew is that the ability to fake that stuff in a decent manner is available to the public.

As far as AI porn I mean.  That’s not really a serious concern as it relates to the concerns in this realm.  I mean that’s just sex work right? Totally stunning and brave.

My whole point was if you think this stuff is a concern wait until it can be done on the fly with live feeds.  Then NOTHING is believable. And if everyone gets nerulink then not even your own eyes are believable.

How is it sex work? There are instances even in schools where someone has edited a classmate’s face in nude pictures and videos and are blackmailing/bullying the other person by threatening to leak it, because even if it is AI it’s difficult to prove it is and can cause suffering for the one being bullied. There are no benefits obviously

There needs to be a law that if you are going to use someone’s face in AI porn you have to pay them.  Then, boom! Now it’s sex work and not only morally acceptable but empowering!

Clearly I am being intentionally silly to illustrate openly that the difference between “male gaze bad” and “sex work is real work” is payment. Yes I know, has not a lot to do with AI.

There is already almost perfect looking videos which are 100% made with AI, and the progress has been astonishing in just a year.

Well, like in most cases, the thing to fear is not the technology but the people using it.  An artificial intelligence is not what we have now regardless of what they call it.  If there was one, yes we should be concerned.  But right now we have complex automation that can learn what other people have haven done and make something along those lines based on those examples.  But it’s a tool that can be used for evil.

Again, premade pics and video are not the upending thing.  The insanity will be real-time inline modification of live events.  At that point NOTHING can be trusted if it’s on a screen.  I am sure there will be companies flying in and end up being official verification platforms but they will be tools of the establishment like “fact checkers” now and will also not be trusted.

But the question is about consent, not the act itself. Just like you can’t just punch and wrestle down someone, hand them money and call it an MMA fight. If the person gives permission to do it and is okay with it then by all means.

Same thing with the male gaze. It’s okay to check someone out but if they are feeling uncomfortable by someone drooling and whistling then it is creepy yes. Just like you can’t rape someone and leave a stash of cash and say it’s sex work. Consent is key.

It was an over the top example to point out the hypocrisy of payment being the difference between good sexual activity and bad sexual activity. I was not coming at the consent part at all.  However, that part begs a question.  If I wanted to make AI porn of Danny Deveto is that a consent problem?  His image is public as he has made it public for decades. Or does it then become a licensing issue?    Which sort of bring us back to my statement about payment being the difference.  And This is actually a question I am stating out loud as a point of conversation it’s not me saying it’s the case.

But the AI hands people a shortcut and makes it easier for them to hurt others. And not just hurting but there are already for example youtubers who have made an AI avatar for themselves which gathers infi from previous videos, being able to replicate the speaking style and sense of humor so the person themself doesn’t need to do anything but roll in the money when AI makes the content all by itself.

AI is like anything else.  A gun, a hammer or a brick.  These are tools to do certain things.  But if someone wishes to use them as a weapon they can.  It is impossible to restrict the tool to be used only as a tool but not a weapon.  Sure, you can make laws about using those things as weapons.  But laws do not restrict anyone from doing anything, they are simply a list of consequences if you do.

This idea where new technology will only bring good things is an unrealistic expectation. And the further idea that we must take away freedom based on new technology is also a bad thought.

This is very similar to the idea that we should control information and there should be some authority to make it so that only “verified” information is allowed and that “hate speech” is not propagated.  Yes someone should indeed decide these things.  But not a central authority. Every person consuming said thing should decide for themselves what is true and what is not.  Not the government or some BS fact checker.  We either want freedom or we don’t. No one entity can guarantee you safety and freedom outside of God.  You will always exchange one for the other.

Freedom is messy because it provides autonomy.  If you centrally control anything you remove that autonomy.

Bad ideas do not propagate because they are said out loud, they propagate when they go unchallenged.

that’s in interesting topic, I would say no matter how famous or public a person is, they still are a person after all. Licensing is more of a topic for products or creations/ideas. The closest I would say a human can be to licensing issue is if they have created a public persona-like character, but it’s a bit of a blurry line. But it all falls back to consent, no licensing issue can go through without accepting it.

Consent to what though?  Did Sega consent to you using their most well known character as your profile pic? I am sure they did not.  Do they care?  No.  Unless you somehow began to make money with it.  Then they would.  Again, it seems the deal here becomes more and more about payment.

If I take public images of Deveto and make memes no one comes after me.  If I sell them then I have lawyers at my door.

If I make AI porn of Deveto and post it does anyone come after?  I bet if I sell it they do.

If I make AI porn of Deveto and I don’t post it but I whack my weed to it 25 times a say is that wrong?

That poor girl on Dr. Phil, the “cash me outside” girl (another lost soul due to no father and an insane mother) .  She has made millions off becoming known through mockery.  Did she consent to that?  Will she give all the money back because she did not consent to it?

As I mentioned above. All these technological tools are tools.  They can be used for good or evil.  You cannot stop that laws or no laws you cannot stop that.   People tend not to care about consent (I mean in this context of digital things) until money is involved.

The reality is, if I posted AI porn of Deveto and he saw it.  He probably laughs his ass off and makes some comedic reply.  However, if I do that with say Margo Robbie, she comes unglued and 3 seconds after I hit submit there are lawyers and cops at my door.  Why?  Margo Robbie makes her sizeable income off her attractiveness and sexual appeal.  If I impugn that or detract from it I harm her income. She won’t say that.  She will use words like consent, violated, male gaze and such but this is to just cloak the actual reason so as to appear honorable.  In the case of Robbie it would not even be personal.  It would be business.

I have not even glanced fair use yet.  If I can put Deveto’s face on a meme or you can use Sonic as your profile pic, how is that different than me slapping Deveto’s face on some porn guy?  I don’t think it is unless money is involved.

Let’s be clear here.  I am morally against all the porn imagery stuff.  Clearly that’s wrong.  I am discussing the logic of it and pointing out how that when things are invented you don’t just get the good, you also get the bad.  And you are not going to legislate away the bad.  And if you try you just end up giving government far more authority than it should have.

@SuperSoynic_Speed

I know we disagree on many things but I very much appreciate you being willing to just talk about stuff regardless, without any anger or hatred.

I am not 100% sure how the law works in this case, especially international law, if they had a problem with some random dude using their pic. But Nintendo has been strict with usage of their property.

But payment is not a substitution for consent, like in rape, deepfake porn or causing any kind of harm.

The point is.  Sega does not care they did not consent to you using their property.  If you start taking in cash that is somehow based on that they will find you so fast it will make your head spin.  Sonic is Sega not Nintendo.  I will gloss over that mistake :)

We are in murky waters here and I think you understand that.  Payment is consent when it comes to licensing.  And when you are talking about “AI porn” it’s just licensing.  No one was harmed in making AI porn.  I could make DeVito porn forever and if he never saw it he would never care.  Unless it harmed his brand, then he would care.

Again, I am not condoning this but there is a difference between morality (God’s law) and legality (man’s law). If someone makes AI porn of my 18yr old daughter (yes I have one of those) is that illegal?  Maybe, maybe not.  What is legal does not matter because I am going to find you regardless.

If he does not consent to it and finds out, I doubt he would be pleased. There has been cases of streamers getting harrassed because someone made explicit deepfake videos of them. It’s also gonna be an issue of how the person views it, if they are fine with thinking ”oh it’s just a deepfake of me, who cares” then fine but for some people it might be a worse thing because few people want fake nudes of them leaked because it can be a hassle to explain to everyone it’s fake

Exactly, this is my point.  It is almost subjective. If someone gets raped it’s very clear that was horrific and detrimental to them. AI porn can happen, they might not even know and if they find out they might not care.  This AI stuff is a case of licensing not anything else.

 

I would actually say she does consent, or at least wouldn’t care because she leans into it and has her own onlyfans so her nudes are out there anyway. And in that case I really wouldn’t have a problem. I’m elaborating on this more next:

Again, it’s subjective. If someone uses your likeness and make millions hurray!  If they use your likeness and negative things happen, then it seems there is an issue.  That’s not how it works.  It’s either OK or it’s not.

And it’s a new phenomenon which we have little reference points to, and the problem is that we don’t have a real solution to it.

Actually no it’s not.  For decades people have found others who like just like someone famous and make them look even more them for the camera.  The first “nudie pic” I ever downloaded and printed was of “Christina Applegate”.  Was it her?  Of course not but it looked like her to a good degree.  The funny part is that probably was like an hour of downloading :P  You had to be dedicated back then.

I don’t know if you have a wife, sister or mom, but if someone made explicit deepfakes of them and they went viral and she has to face harrassment, comments on public places, weird gazes and guys staring at work etc., I doubt it would be fixed if someone walked up and gave her some cash. Humans are greedy and money can fix many problems, where people who do not consent can turn to consenting by receiving money. But not all.

This is the difference between legality and morality I explained earlier. My mother has passed, I have 2 sisters and a daughter.  And yes, AI porn of them means I show up at your door. At that point legality matters not.  And lets understand legality.  It stops no one from doing anything.  It’s just a list of what happens to you (maybe) if you do.

I promise you there are a number of people out who where money would close that loop for them.  That’s makes me sad to say.  If you made AI porn of my daughter money is not a solution.  I am just going to find you.  And that’s the difference between honor and greed.

We do agree on this topic, my point was just to mention that deepfake images will create problems like this.

Yes sir I think we are on the same page.  New technology does not only bring good, it brings bad.  And you do not get one without the other.  You can discourage people from the bad but you cannot stop them.  And we have to be careful not to sacrifice our freedoms with the false hope that the bad can be stopped.