5 ms·
“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 s
by 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.
- chii 3y ago> creating and distributing not creating. Only distributing could create harm. So if someone wishes to create AI generated imagery in private, without giving said image public access, then it ought to be fine.
- bastawhiz 3y agoI'm not sure that distributing alone is in fact harmful, otherwise you could sue everyone in the pipe that touches the bytes. Both creating and distributing together create the necessary conditions to show intent and harm.
- joker_minmax 3y agoAnd how can one verify that public access will not be granted? How can privacy be ensured here? It is a house of cards
- chii 3y agoHow do you ensure that murder doesn't take place?
- paxys 3y agoShould putting a celebrity's face on a billboard without their consent be covered under "freedom of speech"? What about if you release a movie starring "Tom Cruise" but Tom Cruise hasn't consented to it and his face is actually deepfaked?
- cvalka 3y agoYou are absolutely right but the comments are driven by emotions. I find it repulsive -> Let's ban it. Obviously we should compel speakers to disclose imagery is AI generated and not real. Banning this kind of speech is affront to freedom of speech AND freedom of thought.
- krapp 3y agoExcept there's a difference between a thought in your head and a digital image or video being published to the internet for profit, and it's weird that you can't comprehend this. I have to assume there are a lot of people in this thread with interests in AI porn because there is a lot of aggressive missing of the point going on here.