13 ms·
Inside the AI porn marketplace
- PaulHoule 3y agoI've seen those things draw an occasional girl with four legs by accident and note one guy who publishes a lot of photos of girls with two belly buttons not because that is a kink of his but because the model makes that mistake a lot and he doesn't catch it.
- falcor84 3y agoThe metrics that people care most about get optimized. The number of legs and belly buttons apparently have lower priority.
- PaulHoule 3y agoI find those things kinda interesting because I am a fan of anime fan art and the skills of the people drawing it vary a lot. I wasn't very picky when I first got into it but over time I see the difference between professional art (say Tsunako's work) and most of the people who draw fan art (except for the few who are also professional or on the path to becoming professional such as Wisespeak... Oddly this interest and some other developments got me interested in art history and criticism in general.) My understanding is that those diffusion models mostly work on a local basis, particularly they don't have a global understanding of how a body exists in 3-dimensional space, human anatomy, etc. (The kind of things an artist has to learn to draw good figure art) Somehow they still do a very good job of maintaining symmetries such as: left and right limbs having the same length, left and right eyes having the same color, etc. I do seem them get in trouble though in other unusual cases: for instance if somebody's arm goes behind their leg the system might not keep track of the length of the obscured part so the global length of the arm ends up wrong. My take is that "four limbs" is really unusual, maybe it happens 1/1000 of the time, whereas in one run of images "two belly buttons" was happening around 10% of the time. Oddly I found there really is a woman with two belly buttons https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/woman-two-belly-buttons-absorbed-twin-womb-20221022 https://www.ladbible.com/entertainment/woman-two-belly-butto...
- brucethemoose2 3y ago> My understanding is that those diffusion models mostly work on a local basis, particularly they don't have a global understanding of how a body exists in 3-dimensional space Stability made some changes with this in mind, anf SDXL is somewhat better at this, but yeah it will be a ongoing issues.
- meepmorp 3y ago> Jenny went on to continue with the rest of her story, explaining that on one birthday, she received free drinks 'all night' for showing her unusual addition to a member of staff who had a fear of belly buttons. > "I showed them to her and she completely freaked out and started crying and left and they high-fived me and gave me free [drinks] for the rest of the night," Jenny explained. I've never felt cheated by the circumstances of my birth before this moment.
- creer 3y agoAnd number of legs, type of skin and such can also be used as a target. Alien-ish erotica is already a focus option.
- systems_glitch 3y agoPic at the top of the featured article appears to have too many toes. Wonder if anyone notices.
- PaulHoule 3y agoI have a polydactyl cat where there isn't really room for the extra toe and might be a little uncomfortable. She can't stand anybody messing with her feet, we are told she's very spooky because children kept trying to touch her paws. I can pick her up and easily hold her upside down like a baby at the food bowl if we're alone but if somebody else is around she's very hard to handle. I had a friend in college who had a similar condition, I knew him for a month before one day I looked at his hand and I said "Dude, you've got six fingers!" In his case the sixth finger was kinda a cross between a pinkie and thumb and not very useful.
- systems_glitch 3y agoMy mom worked as a secretary for a while and was always amazed at how fast one of her friends could type, compared to her. Turns out she had six fully functional fingers on each hand and her own method of typing! IIRC the gene for six digits is actually a dominant trait, oddly enough.
- xwdv 3y ago“Non-consentual” imagery is such a strange concept. Does it not fall under some kind of freedom of speech to be able to generate artwork or content of someone specific getting railed? This feels like asking someone for consent to imagine them while masturbating.
- tekla 3y agoI do kind of wonder how different this is from cutting out the face from a photo from someone you like, and pasting it into the body of some porn mag for masturbation purposes.
- makeitdouble 3y agoI presume there would be a huge gap depending on if you sell it on a marketplace or not.
- joker_minmax 3y agoThere is a vast difference in the realism of the end product, or type of end product in the case of a deepfake video where it is not just a static frame like a magazine.
- jprete 3y agoNobody would ever mistake such a pasted face as belonging to the actual model, so most people wouldn’t care aside from the inherent creepiness of it.
- makeitdouble 3y agoUltimately this should come down on wether harm is made or if the societal impact is not accepted. To take your example, explaining face to face to the person how you imagined them when masturbating could bring punishment depending on how they take it or if it impacts them in problematic ways.
- bastawhiz 3y agoI don't think anyone would say you should be prevented from drawing whatever you want in a sketchbook. But if I started distributing a magic sketchbook that drew one particular person in lewd poses, even though those images don't exist yet when the sketchbook is distributed I could see a strong argument that what I'm doing is essentially harassment and defamation. The US doesn't have federal protection of image rights (that I know of, anyway) but depending on the state it may be illegal to use someone's likeness in this way. I do think that there's an argument here that could be brought before a court and potentially won that even if individual lewd images are free speech, creating and distributing a machine that produces those images can cause real material harm to the person whose likeness is used in the imagery.
- lemper 3y agogenie's out of the bottle. nobody can't stop it. law? do you believe those corrupt old men actually work for you? especially when a founder of leading llm company is chasing for regulatory capture. shit show all around. and out of topic: the quality of this report is really top notch. where and how can I support you?
- ericzawo 3y agoIT's a brand new publication from ex-Motherboard journalists. Definitely worth a subscription. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/business/media/404-media-vice-motherboard.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/business/media/404-media-...
- tekla 3y agoSpin off from Vice does not inspire confidence about journalistic integrity. It isn't 2010 anymore
- Invictus0 3y agoSays the guy clicking on AI-porn articles
- flatline 3y agoI was confused by the tone, this helps explain it. It comes off as a relic from another age, other people doing the equivalent of investigative journalism nowadays don’t typically use phrases like “our investigation revealed.” It really breaks the fourth wall.
- seanw444 3y agoWhile I see where you're coming from, they may have split off specifically because they don't like the way Vice (and thus Motherboard) has gone.
- Drakyry 3y ago[dead]
- _nrnx 3y agoBefore AI, you can commission an artist and pay 100 bucks for questionable images. Now with AI, you can pay $1 for the same questionable images. The contents being generated are nothing special. They are just various kinks and fantasy and some hardcore stuff that have been floating around since forever. It is just more accessible and easier to make them now. And considering where they come from, this is probably an improvement since no real human is involved or harmed for it. The only thing I can see people worry about is someone putting a real person's face on a porn image. But deepfakes are also around for years and we don't really care or affected that much. Why bother with what people do behind closed doors? As long as they don't harm anyone, what they do in private is their own business.
- cataphract 3y ago> The only thing I can see people worry about is someone putting a real person's face on a porn image. But deepfakes are also around for years and we don't really care or affected that much. Why bother with what people do behind closed doors? As long as they don't harm anyone, what they do in private is their own business. The problem is when it doesn't stay behind closed doors, but instead when this is used to harass the person being depicted. Non-consensual distribution of porn is a big deal because there is a lot of evidence of its harms, including a very large fraction of people with suicide ideation.
- galaxytachyon 3y agoThere are already laws for that. Like I said, deepfakes and photoshop have been around for a while. The same concerns were raised back then and now it is just another type of porn. Turn out those petty enough to use deepfakes to bully are also often not bright enough to make them good enough. It will be the same with AI. In many ways it is still easier to spot an AI generated image than some photoshopped photos. So I still don't see any problem.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3y ago
- js8 3y agoI think this is inevitable and the best we can do, as a society, is to forbid publishing images together with personal identification (like actress name) without their consent. As they explain, almost anybody can combine the two images using AI in their own home. I think that's not very different from privately fantasizing about a famous actress. I think it would be too privacy intrusive for society to try to prevent that. The real harm seems to come from publishing, and making the connection (i.e. claim that this image that looks like this actress is in fact, image of this actress), so the image can be found under their name. That's where I think we should draw a line.
- planede 3y agoFace and possibly other body features are already enough for personal identification. I mean if a nude with Emma Watson's face is generated then adding Emma Watson's name to make the connection is already redundant. Anybody can recognize her face.
- chii 3y agoi think they meant fraudulent attribution rather than identification. For example, claiming such a nude emma watson photo is real means they are fraudulently misrepresenting her and thus, could tarnish her reputation etc.
- planede 3y agoYeah, but even for fraudulent attribution it would be enough to state that the image is real, without spelling out the name. On the flip side spelling out "fake Emma Watson AI nude" wouldn't be fraudulent attribution. edit: But it looks like the js8 takes issue with the image being findable under the name as well, not necessarily with false attribution.
- chii 3y agoWhich is why fake Emma Watson images should not be illegal, as long as there's clear labeling (may be a requirement for watermarking for more permanence).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway202308 3y agoQuestion: Can we use this to liberate people with... different... tastes, Like pedophiles and gore? Give them something to look at without harming real people?
- bena 3y agoAnd how do you train an AI to generate pedophilia and gore?
- refulgentis 3y agoYou don't have to. My takeaway from the thread thus far is even well-educated tech prosumers are dangerously naive on exactly how bad the situation is with this stuff.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoYeah. The answer to OP's question is yes. Its already happening, on a large scale.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nickthegreek 3y agoFrom my understanding, Stable Diffusion model will gladly spit out pedophilia while not being trained on such the same way it will gladly give me a Shark in Space.
- MagnumOpus 3y agoA lot of places have laws against possessing hand-drawn child porn too; it gets justified with hand-wavy arguments of "enticing" or "normalising" the abuse of real children. Much of the legislation around pedophilia is driven by revulsion rather than the extent of harm, so I think ideas to use this for therapy would get rejected by the populace and thus by legislators who want to be popular...
- kaashif 3y ago
- sumuyuda 3y agoFunny that when it is AI generated porn, it is non-consensual, but Copilot and ChatGPT aren’t labeled as producing non-consensual code and text, when they stole the data in the same manner.
- kmeisthax 3y agoPeople are already complaining about that too and there are several pending lawsuits regarding the training data in the models.
- artninja1988 3y agoWhen you publish a work, you inherently grant permission for others to use it in various ways, including fair use and reuse
- rantallion 3y agoIt depends entirely on the license under which you published. Not everything is, or should be, fair game for corporations to exploit.
- artninja1988 3y agoHaving a license does not override fair use considerations
- ceejayoz 3y agoPeople often have an overly broad idea of what fair use protects, though.
- troad 3y ago> When you publish a work, you inherently grant permission for others to use it in various ways, including fair use and reuse This is conceptually backwards. In general, you have the right to do anything not constrained by law. Copyright is one such constraint, but fair use is carved out from copyright and specifically not included in copyright protection. Ergo, you don't need to do anything to have the right to fair use. This means that publication is irrelevant. Even if a work isn't published, and you just happen to find it under someone else's couch cushions, you have the right to make fair use of it. Of course, as goes without saying, fair use is quite limited, and the creator retains copyright and other rights (moral, etc.). (None of the above is legal advice.)
- alexb_ 3y agoI feel like a lot of the concerns around this are already covered by image and likeness restrictions. They exist for the exact same reason - people don't want their likeness associated with something they don't consent to. They don't want their image tarnished or false information being published. It's just that the modern internet has gotten us so used to completely disregarding this that people forgot it was something that affects others. I don't think local models should ever be restricted, in the same way I don't think our imaginations should be restricted. But when it comes to non-private use, sharing, selling, harassment, those are all bad for their own obvious reasons. It's a new problem, but AI is not to blame - bad people who want to stalk, harass, and completely disrespect others are the problem. Blame the human, not the tool. A tool which gives people new ways to harm others is not the tools fault, it's the person who's doing the harm's fault.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- matt-attack 3y agoHow is it a “new problem” when painting has existed for a 1000 years and photo-realistic painted had existed for at least 100. The idea that someone, be it a celebrity or a non-celebrity, should have a concern that someone might paint them without their consent is simply mind bogglingly ridiculous. As if anyone can have a say in what I choose to paint (I can paint in a photo realistic manner). If I want to paint Halle Berry having sex with Bill Cosby I may and no human on the planet should have a say in telling me I cannot. Not Halle, not Bill and not you. To imply that someone should be able to stop me from making any painting I wish is to subscribe to the most dystopian of world-views. And yes, my mind has been “trained” on various photos I’ve seen of Bill Cosby over my lifetime. He doesn’t somehow get to own my creative works just because I trained my mind on photos of him or tv shows. Replacing the paint brush with a piece of software I write is not going to change this logic.
- cvalka 3y ago[flagged]
- 3y ago
- jrm4 3y agoThe million-foot view thing that I can't get over. I'm utterly fascinated by how in practice with things like this, celebrities are the historical equivalent of religious figures. Like, there's all KINDS of weird shit that can be spread around, no problem, but a long time ago, "we" drew a very serious line at CELEBRITIES.
- goatsi 3y agoThe articles focus on the marketplace element and "for sale" seems strange given that everything in it is available for free. Any of the the models or LORAs can be downloaded without payment and run locally, the apps and websites mentioned are just charging for running the models.
- refulgentis 3y agoHmmm...trying to square my reading with that observation: I think that's only true if we limit ourselves to the first paragraphs on Civit, and either skip the rest, or argue the rest is irrelevant because you could construct something yourself without paying.
- goatsi 3y agoI guess I'm reading the article as them calling CivitAI the "marketplace", which is like calling Github a marketplace because projects can have a button to run them on Heroku.
- nickthegreek 3y agoThere are a whole host of discords and such that produce and sell this stuff. Most people would rather spend $ then create themselves. This financial incentive is driving alot of creators. You have sites like mrdeepfakes which try to be the pornhub of celeb/influencer ai content that will are going to try and ride the legal line. These are the marketplaces of concern, not civitai imo. Personally, I have way less of an issue of some person creating private pornography in their home than I do with profit generating side. Ideally laws could be crafted that protect the private rights of the individual while regulating the distribution or profit of using other people's likenesses in this way.
- ChrisArchitect 3y ago[dupe] This is what we have to look forward to with 404media posts? Repeated threads over and over? More discussion over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37237810 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37237810
- hiatus 3y agoThis post has more comments than the linked post.
- joker_minmax 3y agoThe amount of people here claiming that using an AI tool to create an image or video that can be shared, and that privately fantasizing inside your own mind, are equivalent, is boggling to me. Your fantasy-brain isn't hooked up to the internet where everything can be saved and reuploaded indefinitely. Personally I feel like I have the right not to appear in pornography produced by a computer that can be diffused worldwide. Privately made or otherwise. The other person's right to fantasy ends at the border of their skull. This is not an economics question, it is an ethics question.
- wruza 3y agoI disagree. You can’t dictate which tools someone should [not] use to amplify fantasy if it doesn’t affect you. Tbh that “right to fantasy ends at the border of their skull” sounds too oppressive to appeal to ethics.
- joker_minmax 3y agoIt absolutely would affect you if that imagery is disseminated through any means capable of being seen by anyone you ever know or meet. It is oppressive because it requires you to allow others to exist with the same right. To me this is a facet of the right to privacy.
- wruza 3y agoSo distribution is what affects you and that is wrong, I agree with that.
- nonameiguess 3y agoI guess this is anticipatory of the technology improving. Deep fakes still look much better than this since most of the image is still real. If the images based on "real" people look like the image at the top, which I imagine they do, it's not much different than drawing a cartoon picture intended to resemble a real person, which for now is still legal, at least in the US, provided you don't actually profit off of it (why some video game sports have to use intentionally generic players even though they don't look realistic anyway). If the concern is people might believe any of these people are really doing the things in the generated art, though, that is premature. We don't know how long it will take to get past this uncanny valley, but there is still a hell of a gap. That "woman" at the top has no pores, no lines in her skin, appears to be growing head hair from her arm, has three fingers on her left hand, has two left feet, the big toe is on the wrong side of both feet, she has six toes on one foot and four on the other, she has an extra heel popping out of the front of her ankle on the right foot. This is still way behind even a hand-drawn cartoon in terms of realism.
- creer 3y agoNext someone will discover that fan fiction exists. Worst! has existed for many years and names, describes and stages actual living personalities. If anything, artists among that bunch were fast to get really good with their tools. To the point that it seems the only reason to restrict an image to one person's likeness is to satisfy a fetish in that one person. Or revenge porn or similar evil plans. The artists might want to pay attention to not inadvertently optimize an image "back down" to one person's likeness but that doesn't seem too difficult.
- AltruisticGapHN 3y agoI'm not going to explore this topic more than I need to know. What little I have seen of it, to me it seems like it is even worse in terms of affect on your nervous system, than old fashioned porn. It is way, way worse because with AI you're tightening the feedback loop, the "instant gratification" physiology in your body more than ever before. It's not good.
- nihilius 3y agorule34 and Celebfakes exists since the beginning of the internet. This ist just more accessible and not a niche anymore. Not much you can do. The tools are there, everybody can generate deepfakes on his offline phone now. Better to live with it. Now when your real nudes leak somehow you can just say its a deepfake.
- ethanjstark 3y agoThis talk of deepfake porn takes me back to a classic HN comment from mabbo: "As I see it, within a couple years this tech will be so widespread and ubiquitous that you can fully expect your asshole friends to grab a dozen photos of you from Facebook and then make a hyperrealistic pornographic image of you with a gorilla. Pandora's box is open, and you cannot put the technology back once it's out there." Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32555540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32555540 And the reply from ForrestN, "In a world where every celebrity is having sex with gorillas, doesn't such an image lose its charge?"