4 ms·

You missed half of my note. An artist can say "no". A machine cannot. If you lower the barrier and allow anything, then you are responsible for the outcome.

You missed half of my note. An artist can say "no". A machine cannot. If you lower the barrier and allow anything, then you are responsible for the outcome. OpenAI rightfully took a responsible angle.

dj_mc_merlin 4y ago
Yes, but who cares whose responsible? Are you telling me you're going to find the guy who photoshopped the picture and jail him? Legally that's possible, realistically it's a fiction. They did this to stop bad PR, because some people are convinced that an AI making pictures is in some way dangerous to society. It is not. We have deepfakes already. We've had photoshop for so long. There is no danger. Even if there was, the cat's out of the bag already. Reasonable people already know to distrust photographic evidence nowadays that is not corroborated. The ones who don't would believe it without the photo regardless.
- nradov 4y ago
  In general under US law it wouldn't be legally possible to jail a guy for Photoshopping a fake picture of President Biden killing a priest. Unless the picture also included some kind of obscenity (in the Miller test sense) or direct threat of violence, it would be classified as protected speech.
wellthisisgreat 4y ago
there will and are million ways to create a photorealistic picture of Joe Biden killing a priest using modern tools, and absolutely nothing will happen if someone did. We've been through this many times, with books, with movies, with video games, with Internet. If it *can* be used for porn / violence etc., it will be, but it won't be the main use case and it won't cause some societal upheaval. Kids aren't running around pulling cops out of cars GTA-style, Internet is not ALL PORN, there is deepfake porn, but nobody really cares, and so on. There are so many ways to feed those dark urges that censorship does nothing except prevent normal use cases that overlap with the words "violence" or "sex" or "politics" or whatever the boogeyman du jour is.

dj_mc_merlin 4y ago

Yes, but who cares whose responsible? Are you telling me you're going to find the guy who photoshopped the picture and jail him? Legally that's possible, realistically it's a fiction. They did this to stop bad PR, because some people are convinced that an AI making pictures is in some way dangerous to society. It is not. We have deepfakes already. We've had photoshop for so long. There is no danger. Even if there was, the cat's out of the bag already. Reasonable people already know to distrust photographic evidence nowadays that is not corroborated. The ones who don't would believe it without the photo regardless.

nradov 4y ago
In general under US law it wouldn't be legally possible to jail a guy for Photoshopping a fake picture of President Biden killing a priest. Unless the picture also included some kind of obscenity (in the Miller test sense) or direct threat of violence, it would be classified as protected speech.

wellthisisgreat 4y ago

there will and are million ways to create a photorealistic picture of Joe Biden killing a priest using modern tools, and absolutely nothing will happen if someone did. We've been through this many times, with books, with movies, with video games, with Internet. If it *can* be used for porn / violence etc., it will be, but it won't be the main use case and it won't cause some societal upheaval. Kids aren't running around pulling cops out of cars GTA-style, Internet is not ALL PORN, there is deepfake porn, but nobody really cares, and so on. There are so many ways to feed those dark urges that censorship does nothing except prevent normal use cases that overlap with the words "violence" or "sex" or "politics" or whatever the boogeyman du jour is.