4 ms·

> AI porn is giving more power than ever to people who wish to hurt women How do fake nudes hurt women? edit: i'm guessing you mean using someone's likeness w

> AI porn is giving more power than ever to people who wish to hurt women How do fake nudes hurt women? edit: i'm guessing you mean using someone's likeness without their consent to create porn, something that was easily doable prior to AI. AI "gives those people more power" as you put it, but it also gives defenders more power. AI safetyism (aka pantywaistism) is a joke.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
Yes, I have already seen women be victims of these false-likeness AI pornographies. I know that HN sits in a safe bubble and will gloss over the dangers because it's "not real" but the damage done is real. The effects on the victims are real and have real world consequences for these people which can potentially be fatal. I know that technology is often a double edged sword. I can be in favour of auto-transport, for example, while still supporting research into seat belts and crumple zones. > AI safetyism (aka pantywaistism) is a joke. I don't know what these are, sorry. I feel like I'm making a valid point based on my observations and you're attempting to discredit that by associating my view with more extreme groups.
- w4ffl35 3y ago
  you're echoing congress woman eshoo.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    Again, I don't know who that is, sorry. I'm not in the US so I don't follow American politics so closely and I'm unsure what point you're making or how to respond.
    - w4ffl35 3y ago
      I'll be more clear: eshoo's argument is that there are photos of Asian females being beaten generated by Stable Diffusion posted to 4chan and thus the NSA needs to step in and do something to stop Stable Diffusion. These arguments are ridiculous. These are fake images generated with an algorithm. Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world. Fake images means someone's ego was hurt and they have a legal battle to attend to if they want the fake images of themselves removed from the internet. Those same fake images could be generated with Photoshop. AI just makes it easier. Banning AI doesn't solve the problem. The time and resources spent debating and attempting to ban AI should be diverted to real issues. The fear surrounding AI is misplaced and makes people who embrace the fear look weak and foolish. The people sowing the fear have the most to gain from public compliance. Additionally, you implied that I am exhibiting some sort of Hacker News group think, I am not. But perhaps this site draws a certain type of personality. I am against government regulation and intervention, and I am VERY against the nanny-statism influence of the UK and others that is being pushed on the US.
      - AlecSchueler 3y ago
        > These arguments are ridiculous. These arguments aren't mine. You're attempting to colour my words by associating them with someone else's who they apparently "sound like." > Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world. Yes, they are. I hope real images of abuse are treated with the gravity they deserve. > Those same fake images could be generated with Photoshop. AI just makes it easier. Yes, many of the things we achieve with me technology could previously have been achieved with more effort using earlier technologies. Airplanes are still world changing, though, even thick we already had cars. > Banning AI doesn't solve the problem. This is a strawman. > Additionally, you implied that I am exhibiting some sort of Hacker News group think, I am not. I simply meant that HN is a predominantly male space and that men are less likely to be victims of faked pornography, so the discussion here will inevitably take a more detached and theoretical point of view on these matters than if potential victims were more included in the conversion.
        w4ffl35 3y ago
        > These arguments aren't mine. You're attempting to colour my words by associating them with someone else's who they apparently "sound like." I didn't say they are. You stated you didn't know what I was talking about, I explained. No one is attempting to color your words as anything. You made a statement regarding the harm AI is doing to women and I'm saying that it echos the sentiment of a congresswoman who I deeply disagree with. > This is a strawman. no, it isn't a strawman when that is literally the issue on the table. Congresswoman Eshoo as I stated wants to use state power to ban Stable Diffusion, and she's using the same argument you're using. The entire world is in a moral panic and it makes me embarrassed to share the same oxygen as these people.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        > I didn't say they are This started when you said I was echoing her. > no, it isn't a strawman when that is literally the issue on the table. Congresswoman Eshoo... I am not Congresswoman Eshoo. I said nothing about a ban. I was making my own points from my own perspective and you've begun arguing against something that someone else has said and put me into their camp by saying I'm echoing them.
Auracle 3y ago
With Stable Diffusion + controlnet, it is pretty damned easy to make nudes of people - and if they're wearing something tight-fitted, it's probably quite accurate as far as overall body shape. Of course, you can make a model of someone with ~30 images and have them wearing and doing whatever you want. On the flip side, that means if your real nudes are leaked you have plausible deniability. What might have been a career ending incident can now be dismissed as someone generating those images instead.
- w4ffl35 3y ago
  > On the flip side, that means if your real nudes are leaked you have plausible deniability indeed, that's the way i have seen it as well. political blackmail can become a thing of the past. makes no sense to ban or restrict.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

Yes, I have already seen women be victims of these false-likeness AI pornographies. I know that HN sits in a safe bubble and will gloss over the dangers because it's "not real" but the damage done is real. The effects on the victims are real and have real world consequences for these people which can potentially be fatal. I know that technology is often a double edged sword. I can be in favour of auto-transport, for example, while still supporting research into seat belts and crumple zones. > AI safetyism (aka pantywaistism) is a joke. I don't know what these are, sorry. I feel like I'm making a valid point based on my observations and you're attempting to discredit that by associating my view with more extreme groups.

w4ffl35 3y ago
you're echoing congress woman eshoo.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Again, I don't know who that is, sorry. I'm not in the US so I don't follow American politics so closely and I'm unsure what point you're making or how to respond.
  - w4ffl35 3y ago
    I'll be more clear: eshoo's argument is that there are photos of Asian females being beaten generated by Stable Diffusion posted to 4chan and thus the NSA needs to step in and do something to stop Stable Diffusion. These arguments are ridiculous. These are fake images generated with an algorithm. Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world. Fake images means someone's ego was hurt and they have a legal battle to attend to if they want the fake images of themselves removed from the internet. Those same fake images could be generated with Photoshop. AI just makes it easier. Banning AI doesn't solve the problem. The time and resources spent debating and attempting to ban AI should be diverted to real issues. The fear surrounding AI is misplaced and makes people who embrace the fear look weak and foolish. The people sowing the fear have the most to gain from public compliance. Additionally, you implied that I am exhibiting some sort of Hacker News group think, I am not. But perhaps this site draws a certain type of personality. I am against government regulation and intervention, and I am VERY against the nanny-statism influence of the UK and others that is being pushed on the US.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      > These arguments are ridiculous. These arguments aren't mine. You're attempting to colour my words by associating them with someone else's who they apparently "sound like." > Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world. Yes, they are. I hope real images of abuse are treated with the gravity they deserve. > Those same fake images could be generated with Photoshop. AI just makes it easier. Yes, many of the things we achieve with me technology could previously have been achieved with more effort using earlier technologies. Airplanes are still world changing, though, even thick we already had cars. > Banning AI doesn't solve the problem. This is a strawman. > Additionally, you implied that I am exhibiting some sort of Hacker News group think, I am not. I simply meant that HN is a predominantly male space and that men are less likely to be victims of faked pornography, so the discussion here will inevitably take a more detached and theoretical point of view on these matters than if potential victims were more included in the conversion.
      - w4ffl35 3y ago
        > These arguments aren't mine. You're attempting to colour my words by associating them with someone else's who they apparently "sound like." I didn't say they are. You stated you didn't know what I was talking about, I explained. No one is attempting to color your words as anything. You made a statement regarding the harm AI is doing to women and I'm saying that it echos the sentiment of a congresswoman who I deeply disagree with. > This is a strawman. no, it isn't a strawman when that is literally the issue on the table. Congresswoman Eshoo as I stated wants to use state power to ban Stable Diffusion, and she's using the same argument you're using. The entire world is in a moral panic and it makes me embarrassed to share the same oxygen as these people.
        AlecSchueler 3y ago
        > I didn't say they are This started when you said I was echoing her. > no, it isn't a strawman when that is literally the issue on the table. Congresswoman Eshoo... I am not Congresswoman Eshoo. I said nothing about a ban. I was making my own points from my own perspective and you've begun arguing against something that someone else has said and put me into their camp by saying I'm echoing them.

Auracle 3y ago

With Stable Diffusion + controlnet, it is pretty damned easy to make nudes of people - and if they're wearing something tight-fitted, it's probably quite accurate as far as overall body shape. Of course, you can make a model of someone with ~30 images and have them wearing and doing whatever you want. On the flip side, that means if your real nudes are leaked you have plausible deniability. What might have been a career ending incident can now be dismissed as someone generating those images instead.

w4ffl35 3y ago
> On the flip side, that means if your real nudes are leaked you have plausible deniability indeed, that's the way i have seen it as well. political blackmail can become a thing of the past. makes no sense to ban or restrict.