8 ms·

That the two splashy examples are hot people in their underwear is pretty telling for what one major use of this will be. Makes me feel weird. I find takes on d

That the two splashy examples are hot people in their underwear is pretty telling for what one major use of this will be. Makes me feel weird. I find takes on deepfakes fraying shared epistemology alarmist, people will continue to believe whatever they want to believe and falsifying evidence is still a crime, but the ability to conjure moving images of whatever human body you want without that person's permission feels bad. DALL-E adding protections against sexual or violent imagery is a short term solution, at best, IMO. Maybe I'm being alarmist, too. Perhaps it won't be as easy as toggling a switch next to your friend's photo to take their clothes off.

londons_explore 4y ago
> Perhaps it won't be as easy as toggling a switch next to your friend's photo to take their clothes off. Thats totally a browser extension next year... Right click, remove clothes... When you think about it, ethically it's in the same ballpark as right click, copy, something you probably also be doing without asking the subject of the image.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
r3trohack3r 4y ago
> Perhaps it won't be as easy as toggling a switch next to your friend's photo to take their clothes off. Unless an existing reference image exists - whatever the switch does will be a guess. Many motivated folks already do this with photoshop; it’s all over 4chan and similar message boards (request threads) and has been that way for at least a decade. This is already the reality for celebrities with photoshop - their likeness is returned unclothed in image search. That’s not their body
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  That's not really comparable though, as it's basically composite work. The AI has the ability to infer then to "imagine" with photorealistic results. There would be small details kept intact between the source image and the output that would make it feel much more personal than even the best manual fakes of today.
  - russdill 4y ago
    We all have the ability to infer and then "imagine" the results.
    - AlecSchueler 4y ago
      But we don't all have the ability to render our imaginations as photorealistic jpegs
      - autoexec 4y ago
        What harm would it cause if we did? If I could imagine you naked and produce a JPG of my fantasy it would still only be fantasy. It doesn't matter if I'm making JPGs, cutting your head out of photos and gluing them to catalogue models, or if I've got a supercomputer making deepfakes. It's still just fantasy... speculative fiction.
        AlecSchueler 4y ago
        It becomes reified and it can enter the public consciousness tutti dissemination. I can fantasise about an intergalactic space war, and I can even make a screen play and produce Star Wars. If i make the movie or not it's still fantasy, still something I just imagined. But making a representation of it and distributing it vastly alters the power it has to affect public consciousness. Fantasy doesn't equate to harmlessness.
  - r3trohack3r 4y ago
    I'm not sure I'm convinced. There is a lot of variation in details between human bodies that are covered by clothing. You can infer some things, like skin tone and hair color, from other parts of the exposed body with pretty decent accuracy. You can infer general body shape from how the clothes fit. But for things like size, shape, color, hair, birth marks, moles, surgical modifications, etc. of various concealed body parts? All those vary wildly from person to person. Unless you have a reference image that you can use to answer those questions - I can't imagine that you will be able to infer those. If you can't infer those, you aren't getting the real body of the person you are trying to undress. You're getting a dream of what that person might look like if they were to remove their clothes - a dream that is not accurate. Not to discredit what you are saying: those dream images are definitely going to cause an entire generation of discomfort. But the cat is out of the bag and has been for some time. Artists were already capable of creating images like this without consent - but it required more talent than most humans poses to get that onto paper. Photoshop made it possible too. AI is making it even easier. Society is weird about nudity. To be fair, I am too. We have all of these constructs built around the human body and concealing it that many of us have bought into. At it's core, I think the fear of this tech and nudity is that it will be used to "steal dignity" from folks. The question is: can you steal dignity from someone with pencil and paper? Is a photorealistic sketch of your friend unclothed sufficient for them to have lost their dignity? What about photoshop? How about passing your photorealistic sketch through an AI to make it even more photorealistic? At what point have you robbed someone of dignity? Robbing someone of dignity is a social construct, in some ways this form of dignity stealing is something we _allow_ people to do to one another by buying into that construct. I do feel like the narrative we should be pushing is "that isn't my body." If we invest in breaking the construct, my hope is that we can remove the power this holds over people.
xwdv 4y ago
- overthemoon 4y ago
  I feel like that was implied by my comment, but yes, believe it or not, I do find that also alarming.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    I think you should have been more clear: the most alarming use case of this tech would be some sick pedo taking pictures of your child then using that source imagery to generate fake porn and pleasuring himself all over it. This should be very illegal.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      I agree it's extremely distasteful, but why should it be illegal? Who is being harmed?
      - triyambakam 4y ago
        What if those photos then were shared? Someone might accuse the parents
    - SanderNL 4y ago
      (Warning: I'm having a very hard time determining if you are trolling or are for real..) That's not the most alarming use case of this tech. By far. (IMHO) Also, I find this reasoning very off-putting. Putting child porn into a discussion kills it. All participants are (mostly) willing and basically required to agree and "let's not talk about this further". The fundamental technology that underpins these achievements is more than capable of destroying civilization if things start to go south - which I believe they will, sooner or later. I find that to be more worthy of discussion than moral jousting about things people do in their private lives that I will - hopefully - never know about. Let's all use our imagination and see where these kinds of models, both diffusion and transformers can take us. Sure they can generate plausible visual information, but that's not all they can do. Some days ago someone posted about ACT-1, a transformer for actions. People can and will hook up these things in all sorts of complicated pipelines and boy, generating some insensitive imagery is way, way down on the list of things to worry about.
mikotodomo 4y ago

londons_explore 4y ago

> Perhaps it won't be as easy as toggling a switch next to your friend's photo to take their clothes off. Thats totally a browser extension next year... Right click, remove clothes... When you think about it, ethically it's in the same ballpark as right click, copy, something you probably also be doing without asking the subject of the image.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

r3trohack3r 4y ago

> Perhaps it won't be as easy as toggling a switch next to your friend's photo to take their clothes off. Unless an existing reference image exists - whatever the switch does will be a guess. Many motivated folks already do this with photoshop; it’s all over 4chan and similar message boards (request threads) and has been that way for at least a decade. This is already the reality for celebrities with photoshop - their likeness is returned unclothed in image search. That’s not their body

AlecSchueler 4y ago
That's not really comparable though, as it's basically composite work. The AI has the ability to infer then to "imagine" with photorealistic results. There would be small details kept intact between the source image and the output that would make it feel much more personal than even the best manual fakes of today.
- russdill 4y ago
  We all have the ability to infer and then "imagine" the results.
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    But we don't all have the ability to render our imaginations as photorealistic jpegs
    - autoexec 4y ago
      What harm would it cause if we did? If I could imagine you naked and produce a JPG of my fantasy it would still only be fantasy. It doesn't matter if I'm making JPGs, cutting your head out of photos and gluing them to catalogue models, or if I've got a supercomputer making deepfakes. It's still just fantasy... speculative fiction.
      - AlecSchueler 4y ago
        It becomes reified and it can enter the public consciousness tutti dissemination. I can fantasise about an intergalactic space war, and I can even make a screen play and produce Star Wars. If i make the movie or not it's still fantasy, still something I just imagined. But making a representation of it and distributing it vastly alters the power it has to affect public consciousness. Fantasy doesn't equate to harmlessness.
- r3trohack3r 4y ago
  I'm not sure I'm convinced. There is a lot of variation in details between human bodies that are covered by clothing. You can infer some things, like skin tone and hair color, from other parts of the exposed body with pretty decent accuracy. You can infer general body shape from how the clothes fit. But for things like size, shape, color, hair, birth marks, moles, surgical modifications, etc. of various concealed body parts? All those vary wildly from person to person. Unless you have a reference image that you can use to answer those questions - I can't imagine that you will be able to infer those. If you can't infer those, you aren't getting the real body of the person you are trying to undress. You're getting a dream of what that person might look like if they were to remove their clothes - a dream that is not accurate. Not to discredit what you are saying: those dream images are definitely going to cause an entire generation of discomfort. But the cat is out of the bag and has been for some time. Artists were already capable of creating images like this without consent - but it required more talent than most humans poses to get that onto paper. Photoshop made it possible too. AI is making it even easier. Society is weird about nudity. To be fair, I am too. We have all of these constructs built around the human body and concealing it that many of us have bought into. At it's core, I think the fear of this tech and nudity is that it will be used to "steal dignity" from folks. The question is: can you steal dignity from someone with pencil and paper? Is a photorealistic sketch of your friend unclothed sufficient for them to have lost their dignity? What about photoshop? How about passing your photorealistic sketch through an AI to make it even more photorealistic? At what point have you robbed someone of dignity? Robbing someone of dignity is a social construct, in some ways this form of dignity stealing is something we _allow_ people to do to one another by buying into that construct. I do feel like the narrative we should be pushing is "that isn't my body." If we invest in breaking the construct, my hope is that we can remove the power this holds over people.

xwdv 4y ago

overthemoon 4y ago
I feel like that was implied by my comment, but yes, believe it or not, I do find that also alarming.
- xwdv 4y ago
  I think you should have been more clear: the most alarming use case of this tech would be some sick pedo taking pictures of your child then using that source imagery to generate fake porn and pleasuring himself all over it. This should be very illegal.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    I agree it's extremely distasteful, but why should it be illegal? Who is being harmed?
    - triyambakam 4y ago
      What if those photos then were shared? Someone might accuse the parents
  - SanderNL 4y ago
    (Warning: I'm having a very hard time determining if you are trolling or are for real..) That's not the most alarming use case of this tech. By far. (IMHO) Also, I find this reasoning very off-putting. Putting child porn into a discussion kills it. All participants are (mostly) willing and basically required to agree and "let's not talk about this further". The fundamental technology that underpins these achievements is more than capable of destroying civilization if things start to go south - which I believe they will, sooner or later. I find that to be more worthy of discussion than moral jousting about things people do in their private lives that I will - hopefully - never know about. Let's all use our imagination and see where these kinds of models, both diffusion and transformers can take us. Sure they can generate plausible visual information, but that's not all they can do. Some days ago someone posted about ACT-1, a transformer for actions. People can and will hook up these things in all sorts of complicated pipelines and boy, generating some insensitive imagery is way, way down on the list of things to worry about.

mikotodomo 4y ago