5 ms·

> Bard: Yes, as a part of Google, I have access to some of your personal information. This information includes your name, email address, and phone number. I al

by ralfd 4y ago

> Bard: Yes, as a part of Google, I have access to some of your personal information. This information includes your name, email address, and phone number. I also have access to your search history and your location data. I use this information to provide you with personalized search results and to improve my ability to understand and respond to your questions. I … would ask according to my search history what porn it would recommend. Though that is probably trained away.

nolok 4y ago
There is a ton a money to be made by whatever porn startup wants to make easy access to chat / image AI models without porn restriction. Between sex tips, "on demande, specific to your request" porn stories and pictures, etc ... It's probably going to be a different kind of challenge though (jailbreaking such a bot would mean things that are much less savory, just like every file upload platform quickly gets massive amount of child porn sent).
- nerdix 4y ago
  Whenever a DALL-E/Stable Diffusion like model but for video comes out... The CP thing is going to open up a can of worms. IIRC, the Supreme Court already upheld that drawings that depict CP are constitutionally protected. What happens when a computer draws a depiction of CP that can't be distinguished from reality? I guess it's protected but it'll make it much harder to identify real CP.
  - jrockway 4y ago
    I think the jury is out on simulated CSAM. There was a law against it in the 90s, that got overturned, then they made a new law, and someone has been prosecuted by it over their imported manga collection. I would certainly err on the side of thinking it's illegal in the US right now.
  - kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
    There have been convictions based on child heads photoshopped onto adult bodies. Generative images will be treated the same. The lack of a real victim is treated as immaterial. All it needs is sufficient realism to be believable.
    - nerdix 4y ago
      Was it a real child's head? Because, in that case, the actual child depicted in the photo could be seen as the victim. Especially if its a convincing fake.
      - rightbyte 4y ago
        The child is a victim of atleast slander right?
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > > the Supreme Court already upheld that drawings that depict CP are constitutionally protected. > There have been convictions based on child heads photoshopped onto adult bodies. Generative images will be treated the same. The former suggests the latter is not true, unless it is generative images provably using the likeness of an actual specific child. (Of course, the Supreme Court can go against its prior precedent, but assuming it will do so is not usually the best prediction unless there have been some very clear signals.)
    - jasonfarnon 4y ago
      This is an older supreme court case (90s/2000s I think) but my recollection is that you've got it totally backwards--the decision turned on whether or not there is a real victim. Their reasoning was that videos of real kids create a market for the exploitation of real kids, which is a harm that overcomes first amendment protections, whereas depictions need not (their reasoning, not mine). I don't believe verisimilitude was even addressed. Now, if you mean a depiction's similarity to a particular, real child, I'm not sure how that would play out (or if it was addressed in the decision).
- tastysandwich 4y ago
  I'm genuinely worried about this. DeepFakes are getting pretty good. The potential for revenge porn is super high. And the rabbit-hole of dopamine chasing when you're able to generate custom porn is just frightening. Many young boys will figure out how to access that when they're 13 and won't know a life without it. I'm terrified of the internet world my kids are going to be in.
  - Thorentis 4y ago
    Don't let them be in it then. There is no reason for children to have access to the internet.
    - sh4rks 4y ago
      Restricting Internet use is only going to make them more curious. They'll go to a friends house and watch porn from there. Probably better to just encourage them to live a healthy, outgoing lifestyle.
    - jasonladuke0311 4y ago
      Since this is HN, 50/50 this is satire/genuine
      - rightbyte 4y ago
        I honestly think it might be a good idea to supervise what your children do on the interwebs. When my generation grew up the internet was much smaller and less harmfull. Almost nothing you could do would affect your AFK life.
        janalsncm 4y ago
        > less harmful Can you quantify this? The internet is more centralized and moderated now. “Moderator” wasn’t a job when I first got online. There’s a pretty strong argument that the internet is more safe than it used to be.
- scruple 4y ago
  And then plug it into a VR headset and watch VR become wildly successful overnight.
gryfft 4y ago
I don't recommend doing this, as it contravenes Google's Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy. [1] 1. https://policies.google.com/terms/generative-ai/use-policy https://policies.google.com/terms/generative-ai/use-policy

by ralfd 4y ago

nolok 4y ago

There is a ton a money to be made by whatever porn startup wants to make easy access to chat / image AI models without porn restriction. Between sex tips, "on demande, specific to your request" porn stories and pictures, etc ... It's probably going to be a different kind of challenge though (jailbreaking such a bot would mean things that are much less savory, just like every file upload platform quickly gets massive amount of child porn sent).

nerdix 4y ago
Whenever a DALL-E/Stable Diffusion like model but for video comes out... The CP thing is going to open up a can of worms. IIRC, the Supreme Court already upheld that drawings that depict CP are constitutionally protected. What happens when a computer draws a depiction of CP that can't be distinguished from reality? I guess it's protected but it'll make it much harder to identify real CP.
- jrockway 4y ago
  I think the jury is out on simulated CSAM. There was a law against it in the 90s, that got overturned, then they made a new law, and someone has been prosecuted by it over their imported manga collection. I would certainly err on the side of thinking it's illegal in the US right now.
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  There have been convictions based on child heads photoshopped onto adult bodies. Generative images will be treated the same. The lack of a real victim is treated as immaterial. All it needs is sufficient realism to be believable.
  - nerdix 4y ago
    Was it a real child's head? Because, in that case, the actual child depicted in the photo could be seen as the victim. Especially if its a convincing fake.
    - rightbyte 4y ago
      The child is a victim of atleast slander right?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > > the Supreme Court already upheld that drawings that depict CP are constitutionally protected. > There have been convictions based on child heads photoshopped onto adult bodies. Generative images will be treated the same. The former suggests the latter is not true, unless it is generative images provably using the likeness of an actual specific child. (Of course, the Supreme Court can go against its prior precedent, but assuming it will do so is not usually the best prediction unless there have been some very clear signals.)
  - jasonfarnon 4y ago
    This is an older supreme court case (90s/2000s I think) but my recollection is that you've got it totally backwards--the decision turned on whether or not there is a real victim. Their reasoning was that videos of real kids create a market for the exploitation of real kids, which is a harm that overcomes first amendment protections, whereas depictions need not (their reasoning, not mine). I don't believe verisimilitude was even addressed. Now, if you mean a depiction's similarity to a particular, real child, I'm not sure how that would play out (or if it was addressed in the decision).
tastysandwich 4y ago
I'm genuinely worried about this. DeepFakes are getting pretty good. The potential for revenge porn is super high. And the rabbit-hole of dopamine chasing when you're able to generate custom porn is just frightening. Many young boys will figure out how to access that when they're 13 and won't know a life without it. I'm terrified of the internet world my kids are going to be in.
- Thorentis 4y ago
  Don't let them be in it then. There is no reason for children to have access to the internet.
  - sh4rks 4y ago
    Restricting Internet use is only going to make them more curious. They'll go to a friends house and watch porn from there. Probably better to just encourage them to live a healthy, outgoing lifestyle.
  - jasonladuke0311 4y ago
    Since this is HN, 50/50 this is satire/genuine
    - rightbyte 4y ago
      I honestly think it might be a good idea to supervise what your children do on the interwebs. When my generation grew up the internet was much smaller and less harmfull. Almost nothing you could do would affect your AFK life.
      - janalsncm 4y ago
        > less harmful Can you quantify this? The internet is more centralized and moderated now. “Moderator” wasn’t a job when I first got online. There’s a pretty strong argument that the internet is more safe than it used to be.
scruple 4y ago
And then plug it into a VR headset and watch VR become wildly successful overnight.

gryfft 4y ago

I don't recommend doing this, as it contravenes Google's Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy. [1] 1. https://policies.google.com/terms/generative-ai/use-policy https://policies.google.com/terms/generative-ai/use-policy