5 ms·
From the main page: “Communication groups [...] • mrdeepfakes - the biggest NSFW English deepfake community”, which strains my assumption of good faith debate
by cwillu 4y ago
From the main page: “Communication groups [...] • mrdeepfakes - the biggest NSFW English deepfake community”, which strains my assumption of good faith debate regarding their ethics.
- sneak 4y agoNothing about producing or consuming deepfakes suggests bad faith. You might not like the art, but deepfakes are not harmful.
- actionfromafar 4y agoThis is a shallow take, no matter which way you look at it. "Guns don't kill people."
- pavlov 4y ago“NSFW deepfakes” literally means “porn with real people’s faces inserted.” Maybe that’s an art form, but it’s also clearly potentially harmful in the same way as revenge porn, teenage nude selfies, and other cases where regular people and porn intersect.
- jl6 4y ago99% agree. The 1% is for the potential for deepfakes to solve blackmail. If producing deepfakes becomes trivial, any blackmail threat can be dismissed with “Whatever, I’ll just say it’s a deepfake”.
- pjc50 4y agoThis is not how humans work. False statements about someone damage that person, even once everybody knows they're false.
- mrparrot 4y agoBut with this argument you could blackmail someone whether or not you have some evidence.
- soerxpso 4y agoYou indeed can. Any of your coworkers can report you to HR right now for allegedly saying to them in private that you find underaged boys attractive. Wouldn't that at least be quite stressful to you?
- sterlind 4y agoPersonally, I've been on the fence about doing sex work. On the one hand, I'm nervous about people identifying me based on my face or identifying marks, but lately I feel like I shouldn't care, I should be open about it and that way I can't be blackmailed.
- Aeolun 4y agoThis sounds like something literally 90% of humanity does in their imagination at some point in their lives. It's inevitable that someone is going to do it in a video when the tech becomes good enough. I'd say it's not the thing itself that's a problem, it's publishing whatever you create as if it's real. There are many things in life that are potentially harmful, but are part of everyday life since nobody actually harms anyone with them.
- overthemoon 4y agoYou do see the difference between a thought, shared with no one and visible to no one, and an image on a computer, which can be uploaded to the internet, right? This isn't about stopping sexual desire, it's about not distributing images of someone's naked body without their permission. That it's not a guaranteed accurate representation is sort of beside the point. It's good enough if you've never seen them naked before. Some people have gone on record saying they don't like it when it happens to them. Why, do you think?
- Aeolun 4y ago> You do see the difference between a thought, shared with no one and visible to no one, and an image on a computer, which can be uploaded to the internet, right? Why do you assume it’s shared with no-one? The representations change, but I can guarantee you that Bianna the Beautiful had several suggestive clay figures created of her without her permission. Not to say that that was necessarily great, Bianna would probably have been upset too. But trying to fight the method of representation instead of the sharing seems like a fools errant to me.
- sneak 4y agoWhy is it clearly potentially harmful? It is not clear to me at all, as photoshop already exists. How is someone harmed by someone else producing video that features people who look like them? The whole "seeing is believing" thing hasn't been true for ages, every movie is half CG these days. I would perhaps buy the premise if deepfakes were sprung on the scene in the 70s or 80s, but the 90s and 2000s have inundated so many with completely fantastical high res CG imagery that nobody thinks videos are proof of anything anymore.
- harimau777 4y agoWouldn't there be a dramatically different level of effort to photoshop every frame in a video convincingly than to create a deep fake of the video?
- 4ggr0 4y agoDo you agree that most people wouldn't like to find a nude video of themselves online? Now why does it make a difference if the video is real or not? It's still a video of a nude body with your face on it. I find this whole deepfake-porn trend to be incredibly disgusting. And it just saddens me that heterosexual males apparently immediately have to exploit such things for their own hornyness. I guess this is also the reason why this topic is not being criticized as much, because the people who develop and consume these videos can't comprehend how disrespectful it all is towards the people (women) who are being deepfaked AND especially the results being shared online, in most cases publicly.
- sneak 4y agoI think that most people would not care if a video is posted online of them if the video is in fact fake. Would you care if someone posted a nude image of someone with your face photoshopped on it? If so, why?
- faheywf 4y agoThis recently happened to a large number of women that are Twitch streamers and they are all very upset. You are free to seek out and read their explanations as to why, I'll include a few tweets. https://twitter.com/qtcinderella/status/1620264657926885380?t=PzsQSfKS_Gk3bkgDCzbi2g&s=19 https://twitter.com/qtcinderella/status/1620264657926885380?... https://twitter.com/mayahiga/status/1620586546083803136?t=c7-rndHUZEO7DvF00MLEQQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/mayahiga/status/1620586546083803136?t=c7...
- pjc50 4y agoWe've not had the test case, but in places where nonconsensual or "revenge" porn is criminalized, deepfakes may well turn out to be illegal. They're certainly distressing for the victim.
- rbanffy 4y agoIt's already illegal for a person to pretend to be another real person without their consent.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jehb 4y agoThis needs an asterisk (and I'll include one of my own: IANAL). In the United States, impersonation is regulated by the states and not consistent across them, but in general this is only true when using impersonation to commit fraud, defamation, or another act that itself is likely a crime already. Many cases would be considered parody or satire, even if no one finds them funny.
- tomjen3 4y agoThis may be the case in some places, and fraud is illegal in general, but should it be illegal to make parodies of politicians using paid actors? I think most people would say no. Then why should it be illegal to do the same with an AI?
- Bud 4y agoNearly everything remotely related to deepfake porn not only "suggests" bad faith, but positively compels the judgment of extreme levels of bad faith.
- rbanffy 4y ago> strains my assumption of good faith debate regarding their ethics. Let's flip the argument upside down. Let's imagine you want to produce porn content, but don't want to be recognized. This technology allows that.
- HellzStormer 4y agoSide note about that: people doing amateur porn where their face doesn't show at all still get recognized because of particular marks on their skins. So this might help this very specific case, but maybe not as much as one would think.
- soerxpso 4y agoIt's trivial to use Stable Diffusion img2img with low noise to change the marks on your skin.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Hamuko 4y agoI've already seen porn where someone's face is blurred. And whose face are you going to put in that porn with this?
- bondarchuk 4y agoIf someone makes a deepfake on their own computer, watches it, and doesn't share it with anybody, I don't see how that's markedly different (morally) from just imagining the same thing. Some people have a very strong visual imagination and others don't have it at all, it's only fair if they can use a technological substitute. Also some entertainment works by artificially instilling a desire which cannot be fulfilled. If people can use deepfakes and masturbation to defuse that desire it might be a moral positive for them.
- theshrike79 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia is a real thing and affects about 4% of people.
- 4ggr0 4y agomrdeepfakes.com is a site where deepfakes are being shared publicly, so your comment doesn't have much to do with the comment you actually replied to.
- _djo_ 4y agoI think it's a fundamentally different thing, morally speaking. Imagination is fleeting, ephemeral, jumbled, and usually linked to a specific state of mind that passes once the person has either grown bored of the imagination of achieved whatever satisfaction they wanted from it. A deep fake image or video is persistent on your device and may leak some day, but worse is that feels real in a way mere imagination never can and it's something a person could go back to over and over, feeding into and enhancing their obsession with the non-consenting person. I think it's a bad thing in ways that imagination and porn are not.
- alickz 4y agoWhat if I photoshop my crush's face onto a naked body? Wouldn't that be similar to having a personal deepfake? I agree with the person you're replying to, you can't stop people doing these things in the privacy of their own home and these deepfakes are functionally similar to other photo / video editing techniques. _Distributing_ those photoshops / deepfakes is another thing entirely though, and one I am fully against.
- netsharc 4y agoTBH I got curious. Clicked on one celeb, oh man, I've seen 90's Photoshop cut and paste the face onto a different body better than those "deepfakes"...