3 ms·

This is just something you have to accept, because if these sites did not block not safe for work content everyone using them would almost immediately start usi

This is just something you have to accept, because if these sites did not block not safe for work content everyone using them would almost immediately start using it to generate nude images of the people they know in real life and other very scummy things. In the long run this is something we're just going to have to learn to deal with as a society, here is a new power we have and it's not going back in the bottle. But in the short run having these filters is a good way to slow down the inevitable and give us a little bit more time to adapt to this new reality. In the meantime, you can run it yourself and I think that's a perfectly fine compromise.

kristopolous 4y ago
So. That's. How. You. Make. Money. With. It
- ben_w 4y ago
  You say that like we should.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jstanley 4y ago
> everyone using them would almost immediately start using it to generate nude images of the people they know in real life and other very scummy things. Even if this were true, I don't see what is scummy about it. Is it scummy for you to imagine people naked? If it's not scummy for you to do it, why is it scummy for you to use a computer to do it? It's not like you're getting actual photographs. It's all made up.
- bioemerl 4y ago
  The scummy part is that they are physical concrete images that you can share with other people. Imagination cannot escape your head, but these images can. The threat is somewhat unique from something like Photoshop as well, because the barrier to entry is much much lower quality can be much much higher. Right now, at this transfer point, having nude images of yourself all over the internet when you did no such picture taking is going to be really tragic and infuriating and frustrating and harmful. I kind of agree with you, it doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, but this is something we're going to have to adapt and learn how to deal with, not something we can just be reckless with.
  - yreg 4y ago
    >The threat is somewhat unique from something like Photoshop as well, because the barrier to entry is much much lower quality can be much much higher. I disagree. The quality in an image editor would be much much higher and more consistent. The barrier to entry of using an image editor in such a way is very low. The barrier to entry to fine tune a model to someone you know is very high. I agree with the rest of what you say.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Imagination (in the sense of "mind images" not creativity) is not universal, and even those with the capacity, the image is usually less distinct than a real image would be. Plus, people in general find images convincing: In some cases you can even get people to believe impossible things, like meeting Bugs Bunny at Disney World as a kid if you give them a photoshopped picture of it.
squeaky-clean 4y ago
You can download the source and run it locally (or in Google Colab for a few bucks) if that's what you wanted to do. The nsfw filter is one function call you can short-circuit with a 'return False'. I think the bigger issue is liability for these companies because they have to host the images in order to generate and display them. There's probably an argument that they can do this without liability, but that's an argument for an expensive lawyer to make, which they probably don't want to pay for.

kristopolous 4y ago

So. That's. How. You. Make. Money. With. It

ben_w 4y ago
You say that like we should.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

jstanley 4y ago

> everyone using them would almost immediately start using it to generate nude images of the people they know in real life and other very scummy things. Even if this were true, I don't see what is scummy about it. Is it scummy for you to imagine people naked? If it's not scummy for you to do it, why is it scummy for you to use a computer to do it? It's not like you're getting actual photographs. It's all made up.

bioemerl 4y ago
The scummy part is that they are physical concrete images that you can share with other people. Imagination cannot escape your head, but these images can. The threat is somewhat unique from something like Photoshop as well, because the barrier to entry is much much lower quality can be much much higher. Right now, at this transfer point, having nude images of yourself all over the internet when you did no such picture taking is going to be really tragic and infuriating and frustrating and harmful. I kind of agree with you, it doesn't necessarily hurt anyone, but this is something we're going to have to adapt and learn how to deal with, not something we can just be reckless with.
- yreg 4y ago
  >The threat is somewhat unique from something like Photoshop as well, because the barrier to entry is much much lower quality can be much much higher. I disagree. The quality in an image editor would be much much higher and more consistent. The barrier to entry of using an image editor in such a way is very low. The barrier to entry to fine tune a model to someone you know is very high. I agree with the rest of what you say.
ben_w 4y ago
Imagination (in the sense of "mind images" not creativity) is not universal, and even those with the capacity, the image is usually less distinct than a real image would be. Plus, people in general find images convincing: In some cases you can even get people to believe impossible things, like meeting Bugs Bunny at Disney World as a kid if you give them a photoshopped picture of it.

squeaky-clean 4y ago

You can download the source and run it locally (or in Google Colab for a few bucks) if that's what you wanted to do. The nsfw filter is one function call you can short-circuit with a 'return False'. I think the bigger issue is liability for these companies because they have to host the images in order to generate and display them. There's probably an argument that they can do this without liability, but that's an argument for an expensive lawyer to make, which they probably don't want to pay for.