7 ms·
This is paternalistic, overbearing, culturally-corrosive nonsense. Substandard buildings, medical procedures, and cars maim and kill. AI image generation is s
by catiopatio 4y ago
This is paternalistic, overbearing, culturally-corrosive nonsense.
Substandard buildings, medical procedures, and cars maim and kill.
AI image generation is speech.
I won’t accept prior restraint on speech as being necessary or inevitable.
- rubidium 4y agoYou’re free bud. You can make it and release. But you have no standing to just complain about it.
- tdehnel 4y agoYour comment equates to “stop talking” as if talking and ideas were somehow not the basic unit of democracy.
- catiopatio 4y agoThe parent comment argues for the necessity and inevitability of legal regulation. We all have standing to debate our shared culture and ethics.
- Turing_Machine 4y agoYou're allowed to complain about anything you want. And others are allowed to either ignore your complants, or act on them.
- datavirtue 4y agoIt's not speech. It's data.
- galangalalgol 4y agoAlso, I thought stable diffusion did release their models and methodology? You just need a 3080 with enough ram to do the inference with now boundaries, and if you have the money and time can train new models. People are already making txt2porn sites. I'm sure they will get crazier and creepier (from my boring vanilla perspective, not judging people with eclectic tastes) as time goes by.
- b112 4y agoPeople are already making txt2porn sites Hi, asking for a friend. Where did you hear about this?
- imhoguy 4y agoDamn, somebody just parked that dot com domain.
- galangalalgol 4y agoClose enough that they probably got the idea from my post? I should probably start checking
- runlevel1 4y agoNo, looks like it was just over a week ago: 2022-10-15T01:04:51Z
- galangalalgol 4y agoI saw it here a couple months ago. The results so far were quite odd but it's early days. I'm not sure what the ethics are. My understanding is that models/actors of consenting age are now well treated in the industry. I'm not sire what those people will do if replaced. But that is true of uber and truck drivers when they figure out self driving, or me when copilot gets a lot better. As for those not considered capable of consent? Maybe this decreases the pressure to hurt more of those people? But the ethics of training seem hidiously evil to me.
- kuramitropolis 4y agoSpeech can get people to maim and kill, too. Sometimes with surprising efficiency. And when a technology is outlawed, the power that it bestows upon humanity concentrates in the outlaws. For sure, information and communication technology are an interesting edge case of that general principle.
- blfr 4y ago
- albatruss 4y agoThe USA threw 100k+ of its own citizens in concentration camps, stripping them of property and leaving them in poverty after the war. Not exactly a shining moment for principles.
- TheCondor 4y agoHow has the first amendment been compromised?
- themitigating 4y agoCan you show me examples of widespread censorship due to misgendering?
- concordDance 4y agoReddit is a good example.
- themitigating 4y agoReddit is a website
- dudeinjapan 4y agoLiterally all major platform websites--Youtube, Tiktok, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.--ban all posts which contain misgendering and deadnaming as part of their broader "hate speech" policies. Agree or not, this is "censorship", and it is "widespread". It is hard to show examples of censored content because it is, you know, censored. But you can try some posts for yourself on these platforms and see how it goes. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-condu... https://decisionmagazine.com/facebook-says-misgendering-considered-hate-speech/ https://decisionmagazine.com/facebook-says-misgendering-cons... https://www.npr.org/2022/02/09/1079643611/tiktok-bans-deadnaming-misgendering https://www.npr.org/2022/02/09/1079643611/tiktok-bans-deadna...
- nixpulvis 4y agoOne day we will crack the "platforming" issue. Until that day, free speech remains under attack, for reasons I cannot wrap my head around completely. It is pervasive though, to the point it feels like a gag at times. But yea, if speech can become law, it can matter quite a bit. Do we really want DALL-E generated state laws?
- dd36 4y agoWhat free speech was attacked?
- thfuran 4y agoSometimes they just inconvenience one group of people or fail to sufficiently support local industry and those aspects are regulated too. Anything big enough is going to get regulatory scrutiny in one way or another because it's moving around a lot of money and affecting a lot of people.
- riversflow 4y ago> AI image generation is speech. Sure, but I don’t think an AI model is speech, at least not one trained on billions of parameters and massive quantities of compute. Comparing it to regulated heavy machinery or architecture is apt. You can’t create an AI model without huge, global industries working together to create the tools to produce said model. And baked in are all sorts of biases that if met with wide-spread adoption could likely have profound social consequences, particularly because these models aren’t easy to make, so the likelihood that they will see large amounts of adoption/use is likely, they are useful tools after all. Group prejudice in these models jumps off the page here, whether race, sex, religion, etc. but black box algorithms are fundamentally dangerous. Speech is fundamental to the human experience, large ML models are not, and calling them speech is nuts.
- hellojesus 4y agoAren't people allowed to release source code on free speech grounds? There's not much difference. One could publish a model with its weights, and that would qualify as free speech.
- bumby 4y agoI believe it depends. Free speech is not without limits. I think there's still a lot of discussion in the biomed community about the legality/ethics of releasing methods that can be used by bad actors to generate potentially harmful results.
- extheat 4y agoAll sorts of software can be used to “generate potentially harmful results”. Think about an algorithm for displaying content on social media sites, a search engine, a piece of malware on a computer. Do we ban books on how to make bombs? It’s such a broad point to make that it’s practically meaningless. The computers job is to read a set of instructions and execute them. It’s abstractly no different to a human writing instructions for another human, with the adage that the computer is a much faster processor than a human. You can quite literally run these ML models (a collection of statistically weighted averages) with pen and paper and a calculator (or even none!). Things will be maliciously used, that means we don’t ban sharp forks (at the determent of legitimate users), we ban those that intentionally misuse those tools.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- colinmhayes 4y agoWell you're not the decision maker here. If the public gets sufficiently upset about ai generated lookalike porn these models will be regulated and maybe banned. And as you seem to realize that doesn't mean people will stop using them, it just means the companies that make them will stop getting paid. Obviously this is what they're trying to avoid, and the morality stuff is just because they don't want to say "we're worried about being regulated."