4 ms·

There's no way of putting this tech back in the box. And it's only going to get more powerful. What if someone combines it with some kind of "deep ageing", to

There's no way of putting this tech back in the box. And it's only going to get more powerful. What if someone combines it with some kind of "deep ageing", to create artificial child porn? Sexual representations of children, even if completely artificial and involving no victims, are illegal in many jurisdictions, but not all. We're only scratching the surface of what semantic editing of video is going to be capable of. It's a very big barrel of worms.

ignoramceisblis 9y ago
One day I imagine we'll practically be handing out nukes to everyone. Actually I imagine that day won't come.
- crb002 9y ago
  3D printer. Only problem is refining the fissile material unless you have a fusion reactor laying around.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    You’re seriously underestimating the precision involved in nuclear weapons. You’re not printing any of the explosive lenses, or any part of the physics package. You’re not printing neutron reflectors and absorbers either. Most of all though, assuming the ability to print some of what I’ve described emerges, it will not be in one compact, inexpensive device. Your boron composite printer won’t be your explosive lens printer, and so on.
Toast_25 9y ago
> What if someone combines it with some kind of "deep ageing", to create artificial child porn? Sexual representations of children, even if completely artificial and involving no victims, are illegal in many jurisdictions, but not all. It's not even that complicated. Petite actress + childs face. I take solace in that from what I saw of the subreddit, it seems like it's quite difficult to create something decent easily.
ordinaryradical 9y ago
Absolutely true, and not that you’re arguing for this but: Just because the technology is out there doesnt mean we throw our hands in the air and give up. Yes it’s there, it’s going to be used for most of the nefarious cases we can imagine, but that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate someone using our image against our will. In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a logical extension of the privacy protections they want to see across the web. No, Lyft employees should not be able to view our trip history willynilly. No, the NSA should not be able to gobble up all of our google searches for profiling us. And no, we should not have to suffer being put in porn against our will because we are a person in the public eye. This stuff should be treated like revenge porn, IMO. Functionally it’s the same even if the technical implementation is different
- autokad 9y ago
  i am on the fence. using my face, and making money off it without my permission seems wrong. however, what if the 'animated' porn star just happens to look like me? inevitably, a generated porn star will look like SOMEONE. for me, this is getting murky. then there is the case that the program generates porn for me. if i privately generate porn using a famous person's image, to me - thats my right. no different than me fantasizing about them in my head.
  - ordinaryradical 9y ago
    Just to clarify the conundrum in your second paragraph: this is definitively privileging your privacy over someone else’s. What you do in private is your business, yes, but that doesn’t give you the right to be a voyeur simply because you are doing so in seclusion. That’s why I think this is a poor argument.
    - autokad 9y ago
      voyeur: "a person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity." is not illegal. its kinda the very definition of watching porn. i wouldnt be violating their privacy any more than taping a picture to a pillow and humping it. are you claiming that is illegal? if not, then it feels like its the quality of the 'content' you are against, not the act.
Tech-Noir 9y ago
The tech is just a special effect, and I find it weird that so many people go straight to the most fucked up use case, or even imagine new possibilities (deep aging? Jesus) or even (elsewhere) start arguing for more laws because of it. Meanwhile nobody fixates on all the horrible stuff that can be done with cameras or Photoshop or Poser. You can, or will be able to soon, do previously Hollywood standard effects at home. You could put Tom Cruise in your wedding video. You could put yourself in Mission Impossible. You could have the cast of the Magnificent Seven in the movie you created with a few mates. You could do tons of imaginative, funny, creative stuff. Celeb porn, sticking the head of a baby on the body of an adult porn star or any other sad/weird porn related use - all of which has done with images for a quarter of a century - are the least interesting things about this. As to the reddit ban, I doubt anyone is surprised.

ignoramceisblis 9y ago

One day I imagine we'll practically be handing out nukes to everyone. Actually I imagine that day won't come.

crb002 9y ago
3D printer. Only problem is refining the fissile material unless you have a fusion reactor laying around.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  You’re seriously underestimating the precision involved in nuclear weapons. You’re not printing any of the explosive lenses, or any part of the physics package. You’re not printing neutron reflectors and absorbers either. Most of all though, assuming the ability to print some of what I’ve described emerges, it will not be in one compact, inexpensive device. Your boron composite printer won’t be your explosive lens printer, and so on.

Toast_25 9y ago

> What if someone combines it with some kind of "deep ageing", to create artificial child porn? Sexual representations of children, even if completely artificial and involving no victims, are illegal in many jurisdictions, but not all. It's not even that complicated. Petite actress + childs face. I take solace in that from what I saw of the subreddit, it seems like it's quite difficult to create something decent easily.

ordinaryradical 9y ago

Absolutely true, and not that you’re arguing for this but: Just because the technology is out there doesnt mean we throw our hands in the air and give up. Yes it’s there, it’s going to be used for most of the nefarious cases we can imagine, but that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate someone using our image against our will. In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a logical extension of the privacy protections they want to see across the web. No, Lyft employees should not be able to view our trip history willynilly. No, the NSA should not be able to gobble up all of our google searches for profiling us. And no, we should not have to suffer being put in porn against our will because we are a person in the public eye. This stuff should be treated like revenge porn, IMO. Functionally it’s the same even if the technical implementation is different

autokad 9y ago
i am on the fence. using my face, and making money off it without my permission seems wrong. however, what if the 'animated' porn star just happens to look like me? inevitably, a generated porn star will look like SOMEONE. for me, this is getting murky. then there is the case that the program generates porn for me. if i privately generate porn using a famous person's image, to me - thats my right. no different than me fantasizing about them in my head.
- ordinaryradical 9y ago
  Just to clarify the conundrum in your second paragraph: this is definitively privileging your privacy over someone else’s. What you do in private is your business, yes, but that doesn’t give you the right to be a voyeur simply because you are doing so in seclusion. That’s why I think this is a poor argument.
  - autokad 9y ago
    voyeur: "a person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity." is not illegal. its kinda the very definition of watching porn. i wouldnt be violating their privacy any more than taping a picture to a pillow and humping it. are you claiming that is illegal? if not, then it feels like its the quality of the 'content' you are against, not the act.

Tech-Noir 9y ago

The tech is just a special effect, and I find it weird that so many people go straight to the most fucked up use case, or even imagine new possibilities (deep aging? Jesus) or even (elsewhere) start arguing for more laws because of it. Meanwhile nobody fixates on all the horrible stuff that can be done with cameras or Photoshop or Poser. You can, or will be able to soon, do previously Hollywood standard effects at home. You could put Tom Cruise in your wedding video. You could put yourself in Mission Impossible. You could have the cast of the Magnificent Seven in the movie you created with a few mates. You could do tons of imaginative, funny, creative stuff. Celeb porn, sticking the head of a baby on the body of an adult porn star or any other sad/weird porn related use - all of which has done with images for a quarter of a century - are the least interesting things about this. As to the reddit ban, I doubt anyone is surprised.