5 ms·

People weaponizing “non consensual porn” to attack this are going to also need to ban pencils, keyboards, and police thoughts. good luck! and merry christmas

ceejayoz 4y ago
That’s like saying there’s no difference between knives and nukes, because both kill people. The ease of it matters.
- ziml77 4y ago
  Ease, scale, and physical disconnect are all factors.
kevingadd 4y ago
deepfakes and pencil sketched nudes are thoroughly different in multiple ways
- brookst 4y ago
  Not if your whole worldview rests on reductive arguments. It’s ok to look in shop windows, therefore it’s ok to look in any window, therefore it’s ok to use ultra telephoto lenses to photograph naked people in their homes. It’s hypocritical to ban fully automatic machine guns if you don’t also ban pillows, because both can be used to kill people. And so on. There is a whole personality type that seems to be based on holding views that depend on ignoring all context in order to produce absurd results while claiming to be highly principled.
  - DannyBee 4y ago
    I'm with you. All of society has always rested on gradients and fuzzy lines. "highly principled" extremism, while nice in theory, has never made the world much better. Pragmatism is what has driven most advancement. That may not feel great to some people because it's rarely perfectly fair (among other things), but it doesn't change it's success.
    - llanowarelves 4y ago
      The legal system is exactly the opposite in establishing limits: canaries in the coal mine and the exceptions proving the rule. Not really anybody wants to be "First Amendment auditors" or the guy in Warren v Brandenburg, but they forced the issue to establish/discover limits. If what was legal was simply "what is average/normal/reasonable" then that likely would mean much less freedom. You can also be influenced socially through media (etc) either direction over time to change what the definition of "reasonable" is. Remember that Barack Obama ran on the now "extreme" position (that many non-Western countries like Japan still holds) that marriage is between a man and a woman only, a little more than a decade ago. Conversely, gay marriage was "extreme"/fringe back then.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Fully automatic machine guns are quite banned. Using a telephoto to peer into someones window is also illegal as they typically have an expectation of privacy. Photoshopping a movie stars face onto a nude body has been around a long time and much of the fake porn of famous people was done this way, probably mostly by individuals. Please give it a google if you doubt me, at your own risk.
    - c0m 4y ago
      > Using a telephoto to peer into someones window is also illegal as they typically have an expectation of privacy. In the US, in NY at least, they do not. A case about exactly this (telephoto lens photography through someone else's window, later displayed as art) didn't survive a motion to dismiss. This was upheld on appeal. Foster v Svenson (2015).
    - int_19h 4y ago
      > Fully automatic machine guns are quite banned. That very much depends on where you are. In US, they're not banned in most states, although they're quite expensive to get, and there's a lot more paperwork than usual.
  - valdiorn 4y ago
    I often use this as an approach to debating. Example; Can we both agree that you should be able to purchase a kitchen knife without a special license? (in parts of China, you can't). Do we both agree that allowing people to have personal nuclear weapons is probably a bad idea and shouldn't be legal? If we can agree on those two things, we're actually on the same side of the argument. The only difference is where we draw the line. I might draw it at "you can buy a sword but not a gun" - you might draw it at "you can buy a gun but not a bazooka". But we both realise that some things can be given to people and handled responsibly (like a simple knife) but other things can't (like large amounts of explosives) Occasionally you'll meet a person that says "no I think people should be allowed to have nukes" or "no, we should ban all sharp objects" in which case you can dismiss a whole like of reasoning, i.e. arguing where to draw the line, because the person's made it clear there is no bounded limit, and they are not open to debating that. Other examples of scales where, if you can't establish boundaries, there is no point debating that person; - can we forgive a child for accidentally killing a small animal? If so, can we forgive Hitler for genocide? - can I draw a caricature of a famous person? If so, can I make deepfake porn featuring my neighbour? - can I push a burglar out of my house when he breaks in? If so, can I execute anyone who enters my property?
    - brookst 4y ago
      Yep. It’s not worth engaging with someone who insists the objective principles of the universe support their exact beliefs and boundaries. I’m also reminded of the old “would you sleep with me for $1m” joke: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/
  - concordDance 4y ago
    I think examples like the grandparents are important for exploring why exactly we come to different conclusions. For the porn example: Is it because one is often thought to be completely accurate, causing a distorted/wrong view of the world? Is it speed of creation? Is it how easily people can learn to do it? Is it automatability? Is it fine detail and accuracy?
- jolancer 4y ago
  Photoshop is a better example. Photoshop is better than any AI software for this.
jandrese 4y ago
I thought that argument was a bit weird. Did the Unstable Diffusion folks specifically add revenge porn to their training model? If so I could see why people were upset, but I didn't see any evidence of that happening.
jolancer 4y ago
Not to mention Photoshop. The problem is I honestly think if Photoshop came out for the first time in 2022 that it absolutely would get banned and be considered far too dangerous.

ceejayoz 4y ago

That’s like saying there’s no difference between knives and nukes, because both kill people. The ease of it matters.

ziml77 4y ago
Ease, scale, and physical disconnect are all factors.

kevingadd 4y ago

deepfakes and pencil sketched nudes are thoroughly different in multiple ways

brookst 4y ago
Not if your whole worldview rests on reductive arguments. It’s ok to look in shop windows, therefore it’s ok to look in any window, therefore it’s ok to use ultra telephoto lenses to photograph naked people in their homes. It’s hypocritical to ban fully automatic machine guns if you don’t also ban pillows, because both can be used to kill people. And so on. There is a whole personality type that seems to be based on holding views that depend on ignoring all context in order to produce absurd results while claiming to be highly principled.
- DannyBee 4y ago
  I'm with you. All of society has always rested on gradients and fuzzy lines. "highly principled" extremism, while nice in theory, has never made the world much better. Pragmatism is what has driven most advancement. That may not feel great to some people because it's rarely perfectly fair (among other things), but it doesn't change it's success.
  - llanowarelves 4y ago
    The legal system is exactly the opposite in establishing limits: canaries in the coal mine and the exceptions proving the rule. Not really anybody wants to be "First Amendment auditors" or the guy in Warren v Brandenburg, but they forced the issue to establish/discover limits. If what was legal was simply "what is average/normal/reasonable" then that likely would mean much less freedom. You can also be influenced socially through media (etc) either direction over time to change what the definition of "reasonable" is. Remember that Barack Obama ran on the now "extreme" position (that many non-Western countries like Japan still holds) that marriage is between a man and a woman only, a little more than a decade ago. Conversely, gay marriage was "extreme"/fringe back then.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Fully automatic machine guns are quite banned. Using a telephoto to peer into someones window is also illegal as they typically have an expectation of privacy. Photoshopping a movie stars face onto a nude body has been around a long time and much of the fake porn of famous people was done this way, probably mostly by individuals. Please give it a google if you doubt me, at your own risk.
  - c0m 4y ago
    > Using a telephoto to peer into someones window is also illegal as they typically have an expectation of privacy. In the US, in NY at least, they do not. A case about exactly this (telephoto lens photography through someone else's window, later displayed as art) didn't survive a motion to dismiss. This was upheld on appeal. Foster v Svenson (2015).
  - int_19h 4y ago
    > Fully automatic machine guns are quite banned. That very much depends on where you are. In US, they're not banned in most states, although they're quite expensive to get, and there's a lot more paperwork than usual.
- valdiorn 4y ago
  I often use this as an approach to debating. Example; Can we both agree that you should be able to purchase a kitchen knife without a special license? (in parts of China, you can't). Do we both agree that allowing people to have personal nuclear weapons is probably a bad idea and shouldn't be legal? If we can agree on those two things, we're actually on the same side of the argument. The only difference is where we draw the line. I might draw it at "you can buy a sword but not a gun" - you might draw it at "you can buy a gun but not a bazooka". But we both realise that some things can be given to people and handled responsibly (like a simple knife) but other things can't (like large amounts of explosives) Occasionally you'll meet a person that says "no I think people should be allowed to have nukes" or "no, we should ban all sharp objects" in which case you can dismiss a whole like of reasoning, i.e. arguing where to draw the line, because the person's made it clear there is no bounded limit, and they are not open to debating that. Other examples of scales where, if you can't establish boundaries, there is no point debating that person; - can we forgive a child for accidentally killing a small animal? If so, can we forgive Hitler for genocide? - can I draw a caricature of a famous person? If so, can I make deepfake porn featuring my neighbour? - can I push a burglar out of my house when he breaks in? If so, can I execute anyone who enters my property?
  - brookst 4y ago
    Yep. It’s not worth engaging with someone who insists the objective principles of the universe support their exact beliefs and boundaries. I’m also reminded of the old “would you sleep with me for $1m” joke: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/
- concordDance 4y ago
  I think examples like the grandparents are important for exploring why exactly we come to different conclusions. For the porn example: Is it because one is often thought to be completely accurate, causing a distorted/wrong view of the world? Is it speed of creation? Is it how easily people can learn to do it? Is it automatability? Is it fine detail and accuracy?
jolancer 4y ago
Photoshop is a better example. Photoshop is better than any AI software for this.

jandrese 4y ago

I thought that argument was a bit weird. Did the Unstable Diffusion folks specifically add revenge porn to their training model? If so I could see why people were upset, but I didn't see any evidence of that happening.

jolancer 4y ago

Not to mention Photoshop. The problem is I honestly think if Photoshop came out for the first time in 2022 that it absolutely would get banned and be considered far too dangerous.