4 ms·

Shouldn't have to in what sense? Someone claiming/implying it's you? That's already considered libel. Someone's machine assisted fantasy that looks kind of like

Shouldn't have to in what sense? Someone claiming/implying it's you? That's already considered libel. Someone's machine assisted fantasy that looks kind of like you? Tough luck, people are allowed to imagine things you would rather they not imagine. If you have not been posting your real naked photos online, fake ones will not depict your private parts accurately anyway.

qwery 3y ago
I think they mean it in the sense that they shouldn't have to. Why do you think they should have to?
- cvalka 3y ago
  Freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Why shouldn't I be able to produce virtual deepfake porn of you if it's clearly or implicitly labeled as fake?
  - ix-ix 3y ago
    Because they don't want you to? What makes you feel entitled to do it?
    - cvalka 3y ago
      If you want to criminalize some act or behavior, the burden of proof is on you. What makes you feel entitled to use the State to penalize me for exercising my speech? She does not like virtual deepfake pornography. Tough luck. Donald Trump does not like the media calling him a loser. Tough luck.
      - kthejoker2 3y ago
        Hiding behind legalism when people are talking about ethics and normative values is cowardly. Speech that directly causes harm to others is not just about legality.
        kcplate 3y ago
        Harm from speech is completely subjective and that is why you need a generalized legal way to measure it as harm. Normative behavior and ethics are subjective as well. They are also subjected to the whims of the mob of the moment.
        kthejoker2 3y ago
        More useless philosophizing, answer the post directly. If a specific someone (like the author) says I do not want a deepfake porn of me, and someone else says I don't care, I made one .. Was harm done? If no, why not?
        kcplate 3y ago
        Ok, easy enough. No…if there is no objective legal definition of harm to confirm the subjective understanding of harm in your example. Yes…if there is an objective legal definition of harm to confirm the subjective understanding of harm in your example.
        kthejoker2 3y ago
        So you've just outsourced your personal moral code to the law? How ... enlightened you are. Letting yourself be an empty vessel for the state to fill as they seem fit sounds sacrificial.
        kcplate 3y ago
        Not at all, but I am realistic enough to know that we cannot have over 8 billion separate definitions of the word “harm” that are actionable. There needs to be a standard that is agreed upon and the law is the source of that.
  - pierat 3y ago
    Simply, because it directly causes someone harm. "My rights end at the end of my fist." is a common phrase. And it's demonstrable, due to "christian" society, that nude women are punished socially for it. We even have capture at the credit card companies for buying porn, and prostitution is illegal mostly everywhere. And even events where clothing is optional, is set to 21, and not 18. I await the day that simple nudity is just that - no clothes. But we're still in basically the 1600's with puritanical backwards thinking that they can't even be shirtless like men, for "sexual reasons". I only think about "nipplegate" back in 2004 superbowl where Jackson's nipple was what, 4 pixels? And people collectively freaked out? Until our society can fucking grow up from 5th grade antics, yeah, its harm. And you shouldn't need to be told not to harm others, but again, collective age is 11/5th grade.
    - cat_plus_plus 3y ago
      Do you also support blackface? If not, would it be Ok to have these rules? - If you actually do blackface, you are accountable by current social standards on that matter - If someone releases a deepfake of you in blackface and doesn't make clear it's machine generated, you can sue them for libel - If some releases a ML photo of you in blackface and clearly states it's machine generated, you are accountable for nothing and they are accountable by current social standards regarding blackface.
      - pierat 3y ago
        Nowhere did I state anything about the law, or otherwise rules enforced on others. Nor did I say anything about suing people. I was talking about personal responsibility in not harming someone else. If your ethical guidance is so broken, you need a law to tell you what you should and shouldn't do, I feel tremendously sorry for you. Does portayal of blackface harm? Yes, it does to the BiPOC community, with terrible racial stereotypes. So don't fucking do it. Again, this isn't a hard concept to figure out. If we all tried to do things that even minimally considered "is this thing going to harm others" and not doing it, we would have a better and more respectful society. And no more laws needed.
        3y ago
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  Well, they don't really have to, do they? They can just be angry for the rest of their life.
mhuffman 3y ago
Has there not already been some kind of court cases for photo-realistic paintings or drawings that incorporate people's likenesses? This seems like something that should have been figured out by now, even before the AI-apocalypse!

qwery 3y ago

I think they mean it in the sense that they shouldn't have to. Why do you think they should have to?

cvalka 3y ago
Freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Why shouldn't I be able to produce virtual deepfake porn of you if it's clearly or implicitly labeled as fake?
- ix-ix 3y ago
  Because they don't want you to? What makes you feel entitled to do it?
  - cvalka 3y ago
    If you want to criminalize some act or behavior, the burden of proof is on you. What makes you feel entitled to use the State to penalize me for exercising my speech? She does not like virtual deepfake pornography. Tough luck. Donald Trump does not like the media calling him a loser. Tough luck.
    - kthejoker2 3y ago
      Hiding behind legalism when people are talking about ethics and normative values is cowardly. Speech that directly causes harm to others is not just about legality.
      - kcplate 3y ago
        Harm from speech is completely subjective and that is why you need a generalized legal way to measure it as harm. Normative behavior and ethics are subjective as well. They are also subjected to the whims of the mob of the moment.
        kthejoker2 3y ago
        More useless philosophizing, answer the post directly. If a specific someone (like the author) says I do not want a deepfake porn of me, and someone else says I don't care, I made one .. Was harm done? If no, why not?
        kcplate 3y ago
        Ok, easy enough. No…if there is no objective legal definition of harm to confirm the subjective understanding of harm in your example. Yes…if there is an objective legal definition of harm to confirm the subjective understanding of harm in your example.
        kthejoker2 3y ago
        So you've just outsourced your personal moral code to the law? How ... enlightened you are. Letting yourself be an empty vessel for the state to fill as they seem fit sounds sacrificial.
        kcplate 3y ago
        Not at all, but I am realistic enough to know that we cannot have over 8 billion separate definitions of the word “harm” that are actionable. There needs to be a standard that is agreed upon and the law is the source of that.
- pierat 3y ago
  Simply, because it directly causes someone harm. "My rights end at the end of my fist." is a common phrase. And it's demonstrable, due to "christian" society, that nude women are punished socially for it. We even have capture at the credit card companies for buying porn, and prostitution is illegal mostly everywhere. And even events where clothing is optional, is set to 21, and not 18. I await the day that simple nudity is just that - no clothes. But we're still in basically the 1600's with puritanical backwards thinking that they can't even be shirtless like men, for "sexual reasons". I only think about "nipplegate" back in 2004 superbowl where Jackson's nipple was what, 4 pixels? And people collectively freaked out? Until our society can fucking grow up from 5th grade antics, yeah, its harm. And you shouldn't need to be told not to harm others, but again, collective age is 11/5th grade.
  - cat_plus_plus 3y ago
    Do you also support blackface? If not, would it be Ok to have these rules? - If you actually do blackface, you are accountable by current social standards on that matter - If someone releases a deepfake of you in blackface and doesn't make clear it's machine generated, you can sue them for libel - If some releases a ML photo of you in blackface and clearly states it's machine generated, you are accountable for nothing and they are accountable by current social standards regarding blackface.
    - pierat 3y ago
      Nowhere did I state anything about the law, or otherwise rules enforced on others. Nor did I say anything about suing people. I was talking about personal responsibility in not harming someone else. If your ethical guidance is so broken, you need a law to tell you what you should and shouldn't do, I feel tremendously sorry for you. Does portayal of blackface harm? Yes, it does to the BiPOC community, with terrible racial stereotypes. So don't fucking do it. Again, this isn't a hard concept to figure out. If we all tried to do things that even minimally considered "is this thing going to harm others" and not doing it, we would have a better and more respectful society. And no more laws needed.
      - 3y ago
bheadmaster 3y ago
Well, they don't really have to, do they? They can just be angry for the rest of their life.

mhuffman 3y ago

Has there not already been some kind of court cases for photo-realistic paintings or drawings that incorporate people's likenesses? This seems like something that should have been figured out by now, even before the AI-apocalypse!