6 ms·

>Porn and AI This comment reminds me of a disturbing one I read a few months back on an anonymous underwater basket weaving forum. The poster was discussing t

by zionic 5y ago

>Porn and AI This comment reminds me of a disturbing one I read a few months back on an anonymous underwater basket weaving forum. The poster was discussing those expensive “real doll” (?) sex robots that creep me out, anyways he went on to mention that he discovered the app “face app” could take these things from “uncanny valley” to essentially photorealistic. Makes sense given what the app is supposed to do, but the real mind fuck was he said it also works on under aged dolls… which again I was surprised to learn are apparently legal most places. So AI/ML can take an inanimate object and then create highly illegal fool-most-humans level fake image from said inanimate object. Seems pretty scary to me, and we might not be far from an ML model that can essentially produce endless amounts of illegal content. What are the implications of that? How do you even begin to police/filter that? Then I guess there’s the question of if we even should, since none of it’s real anyways. Porn and AI is gonna get real messy.

rg111 5y ago
> we might not be far from an ML model that can essentially produce endless amounts of illegal content Like this [0] one? And give me enough money, I can get you one that's a lot better. But I don't want to work for a porn company because of not the perceived immorality of porn, but for the horrible things that come with Porn. And I am well past my teenage years to do this with my own time and money. [0]: https://thisvaginadoesnotexist.com/about.html https://thisvaginadoesnotexist.com/about.html
aeturnum 5y ago
> Porn and AI is gonna get real messy. From a practical standpoint I think it is going to be an unmitigated nightmare: people creating AI revenge porn, fake porn of famous people, etc. From a legal standpoint, I don't think AI changes that much. People still own their image and while I would support stronger penalties for creating fake media of people, the law protects third parties using your image without your permission. Revenge porn already carries specific penalties in many jurisdictions[1]. > I guess there’s the question of if we even should, since none of it’s real anyways. I absolutely think you should have say over the release and distribution of porn that uses your image. Not because it's wrong to make porn, but because you are impacted by its existence. [1] I am generally skeptical of the ability of the prison system to deal with these kinds of things, but if we are going to have one I am glad it's included in the list of crimes.
- setr 5y ago
  > From a practical standpoint I think it is going to be an unmitigated nightmare: people creating AI revenge porn, fake porn of famous people, etc. I honestly don’t see these becoming larger problems — once it’s ubiquitous, then it’ll quickly become meaningless; by default, everyone will assume it’s generated, the equivalent of cutting out and pasting their face onto a nude image today, and it’ll have relatively little impact. It’d probably still be rude and stupid, but I’m fairly positive it’ll be much less damaging than it is today. Effectively: if everyone stars in a porno, no one does.
  - aeturnum 5y ago
    > if everyone stars in a porno, no one does. I am sorry I missed this because I disagree, I think it's worth considering the legal status of lying. Generally, lying is protected speech (and everyone does lie sometimes), but that's not the case when you lie in certain circumstances. We've always recognized that some lies are worse than others and I expect that some fake porns will be worse than others too. I expect that making fake pornography will work the same way, probably following the already-established legal frameworks I suggested.
tomerv 5y ago
Not sure if I want to get into this discussion... but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? And is it moral? I could see it going either way (no child got hurt in the process / but it may push someone with pedophile tendencies towards acting on them / but it could also provide a safe outlet for someone with those tendencies).
- zionic 5y ago
  I haven’t researched it heavily, but AFAIK the gov can’t really criminalize art/drawings etc. If it doesn’t depict a real person, then what’s the crime exactly? It’s still disgusting, but that’s another topic.
  - dymk 5y ago
    Well sure they can, although it depends what government you're talking about. Porn laws in Japan are weird, and the government does require that distributed pornography (including drawings) be censored.
- netcan 5y ago
  It's complicated, in that this depends on jurisdiction. In some places, the age of the character matters, not just the actor's age. Regardless of legality, I think this is very prominent in self censorship. A lot of filmmakers wouldn't depict a nude 15 year old sexually, regardless of the actor's actual age.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  It probably depends on whether they can prove the individual was soliciting for the real stuff. Same legal reason for why you're still committing a crime when you fall for a sting operation with an actual adult.
- rg111 5y ago
  > but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal? The pixels are just the conduit, just as the the adult actress depicting a minor in a sexual act. So it should be. But whether it is moral- I don't know. I don't know enough psychology, public policy, etc. to express an informed opinion. But my personal choice? Yes. It should be illegal. Hypothetically, if it ever comes to a vote, I would vote against child porn even when there is no real human involved. That's why child porn in animations is banned as well.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Feminists are against it because they are afraid it could replace real women. I have to admit that considering the general shittyness of man it is not beyond the realm of possibility that one day we might prefer the companionship of robots. I read Asimov when I was a teen.
- na85 5y ago
  >Feminists are against it because they are afraid it could replace real women. Do you really think that's why feminists are against it?
cbozeman 5y ago
> Then I guess there’s the question of if we even should, since none of it’s real anyways. The idea of "policing" something that isn't even real should be seen as just patently ridiculous to any thinking person. What comes after that? People love to shit all over the "slippery slope" and call it a "fallacy" even though there's a clear historical record of how the smallest of openings for those in power eventually become handholds, then footholds, until finally, you're living under a tyrannical system.
- dijonman2 5y ago
  > those in power eventually become handholds, then footholds, until finally, you're living under a tyrannical system. I immediately thought about the current US political landscape. I believe this is exactly what we’re seeing with respect to radicalization.
  - qeternity 5y ago
    If you think the US is bad, you should see Europe. Covid has blown open the door for essentially war time powers. It’s crazy.
- alex_anglin 5y ago
  I would argue that it's a reasonable limit on whichever freedom may be cited not to allow the creation and distribution of child pornography, even when it is fictitious.
  - somebodythere 5y ago
    That limit is probably where real harm was caused to a real child.
    - dTal 5y ago
      It's not implausible that deepfake child porn ultimately causes harm to children. Allowing people to repeatedly indulge in a weak fetish may reinforce it into a strong one, or blunt a disgust response which would prevent them from acting it out.

by zionic 5y ago

rg111 5y ago

> we might not be far from an ML model that can essentially produce endless amounts of illegal content Like this [0] one? And give me enough money, I can get you one that's a lot better. But I don't want to work for a porn company because of not the perceived immorality of porn, but for the horrible things that come with Porn. And I am well past my teenage years to do this with my own time and money. [0]: https://thisvaginadoesnotexist.com/about.html https://thisvaginadoesnotexist.com/about.html

aeturnum 5y ago

> Porn and AI is gonna get real messy. From a practical standpoint I think it is going to be an unmitigated nightmare: people creating AI revenge porn, fake porn of famous people, etc. From a legal standpoint, I don't think AI changes that much. People still own their image and while I would support stronger penalties for creating fake media of people, the law protects third parties using your image without your permission. Revenge porn already carries specific penalties in many jurisdictions[1]. > I guess there’s the question of if we even should, since none of it’s real anyways. I absolutely think you should have say over the release and distribution of porn that uses your image. Not because it's wrong to make porn, but because you are impacted by its existence. [1] I am generally skeptical of the ability of the prison system to deal with these kinds of things, but if we are going to have one I am glad it's included in the list of crimes.

setr 5y ago
> From a practical standpoint I think it is going to be an unmitigated nightmare: people creating AI revenge porn, fake porn of famous people, etc. I honestly don’t see these becoming larger problems — once it’s ubiquitous, then it’ll quickly become meaningless; by default, everyone will assume it’s generated, the equivalent of cutting out and pasting their face onto a nude image today, and it’ll have relatively little impact. It’d probably still be rude and stupid, but I’m fairly positive it’ll be much less damaging than it is today. Effectively: if everyone stars in a porno, no one does.
- aeturnum 5y ago
  > if everyone stars in a porno, no one does. I am sorry I missed this because I disagree, I think it's worth considering the legal status of lying. Generally, lying is protected speech (and everyone does lie sometimes), but that's not the case when you lie in certain circumstances. We've always recognized that some lies are worse than others and I expect that some fake porns will be worse than others too. I expect that making fake pornography will work the same way, probably following the already-established legal frameworks I suggested.

tomerv 5y ago

Not sure if I want to get into this discussion... but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? And is it moral? I could see it going either way (no child got hurt in the process / but it may push someone with pedophile tendencies towards acting on them / but it could also provide a safe outlet for someone with those tendencies).

zionic 5y ago
I haven’t researched it heavily, but AFAIK the gov can’t really criminalize art/drawings etc. If it doesn’t depict a real person, then what’s the crime exactly? It’s still disgusting, but that’s another topic.
- dymk 5y ago
  Well sure they can, although it depends what government you're talking about. Porn laws in Japan are weird, and the government does require that distributed pornography (including drawings) be censored.
netcan 5y ago
It's complicated, in that this depends on jurisdiction. In some places, the age of the character matters, not just the actor's age. Regardless of legality, I think this is very prominent in self censorship. A lot of filmmakers wouldn't depict a nude 15 year old sexually, regardless of the actor's actual age.
lr4444lr 5y ago
It probably depends on whether they can prove the individual was soliciting for the real stuff. Same legal reason for why you're still committing a crime when you fall for a sting operation with an actual adult.
rg111 5y ago
> but is underage porn still illegal when it's not technically depicting a real person? If we look at existing laws, it should be. Depicting an underage person even when the actor is an adult is illegal, I think, in every country. So adult actress portraying a minor is illegal. So why not pixels depicting young girls should be illegal? The pixels are just the conduit, just as the the adult actress depicting a minor in a sexual act. So it should be. But whether it is moral- I don't know. I don't know enough psychology, public policy, etc. to express an informed opinion. But my personal choice? Yes. It should be illegal. Hypothetically, if it ever comes to a vote, I would vote against child porn even when there is no real human involved. That's why child porn in animations is banned as well.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

Feminists are against it because they are afraid it could replace real women. I have to admit that considering the general shittyness of man it is not beyond the realm of possibility that one day we might prefer the companionship of robots. I read Asimov when I was a teen.

na85 5y ago
>Feminists are against it because they are afraid it could replace real women. Do you really think that's why feminists are against it?

cbozeman 5y ago

> Then I guess there’s the question of if we even should, since none of it’s real anyways. The idea of "policing" something that isn't even real should be seen as just patently ridiculous to any thinking person. What comes after that? People love to shit all over the "slippery slope" and call it a "fallacy" even though there's a clear historical record of how the smallest of openings for those in power eventually become handholds, then footholds, until finally, you're living under a tyrannical system.

dijonman2 5y ago
> those in power eventually become handholds, then footholds, until finally, you're living under a tyrannical system. I immediately thought about the current US political landscape. I believe this is exactly what we’re seeing with respect to radicalization.
- qeternity 5y ago
  If you think the US is bad, you should see Europe. Covid has blown open the door for essentially war time powers. It’s crazy.
alex_anglin 5y ago
I would argue that it's a reasonable limit on whichever freedom may be cited not to allow the creation and distribution of child pornography, even when it is fictitious.
- somebodythere 5y ago
  That limit is probably where real harm was caused to a real child.
  - dTal 5y ago
    It's not implausible that deepfake child porn ultimately causes harm to children. Allowing people to repeatedly indulge in a weak fetish may reinforce it into a strong one, or blunt a disgust response which would prevent them from acting it out.