8 ms·

How 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 c

How 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]
joker_minmax 3y ago
Everyone can look at that and know it's a painting, not a real image. Most "photorealisfic" portraiture still looks visibly like a painting. Paintings can't move like a video can. The issue is misleading people with believable imagery. The issue is defamation. Apply it to yourself and your own image instead of Cosby.
- cvalka 3y ago
  This can be dealt with mandatory disclosures enforced by law that the imagery is AI generated and not real. But this solution will not satisfy you, will it?
  - joker_minmax 3y ago
    So now you want the law further involved in pornography? Will fine print save someone's reputation like that? If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      > If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules. Yes... and by making laws around the distribution or labeling of this content they can be sued. The argument that criminals don't follow the law, so there should be no law is really weak. I dont really see a problem with requiring AI porn of non consensual 3rd parties to be labeled as such at a MINIMUM. Some amount of regulation could be required and shouldn't be dismissed outright given the societal harm that could be caused.
  - creer 3y ago
    I could see artists voluntarily mentioning AI art in their captions. And on the forums I frequent, that's the current solution to keep the controversy down.
- matt-attack 3y ago
  So once my paints get “too” good (I.e. indistinguishable from a photo) then all of a sudden my benign art has transformed into a violation of the law? Or is now “problematic”? Btw that’s how photorealistic paintings already are.
  - alexb_ 3y ago
    Actually, once your painting gets to any amount of recognizability at all for someone's image/likeness, it is a violation. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the internet has made us forget that these laws already exist because nobody has been enforcing them.
    - matt-attack 3y ago
      So you’re saying there are drawings I can make that somehow “violations”? Think about that. There’s a drawing I’m not allowed to draw. Like WFT. Talk about dystopian.
      - nickthegreek 3y ago
        You are not allowed to draw children in sexual acts in many places in the world. In some countries, you cant even draw god. These artistic limits have existed for a long time, but normally people don't rub up against them.
      - lakis 3y ago
        These laws already exist right now. Here is an example. You can't make a painting at the dimension of a dollar bill that's so authentic that looks exactly like a dollar bill. That's called counterfeiting and it's illegal on every country in the world I believe (for their own money of course).
        Turing_Machine 3y ago
        That's an entirely different thing from being prohibited from making any likeness of George Washington (even if the image shows him having sex with Martha, Thomas Jefferson, or the entire Continental Congress).
- Hizonner 3y ago
  I don't think defamation is the issue. The idea behind defamation is that it's harmful to somebody if people believe bad things about them. People still feel harmed by these images even if absolutely nobody believes that they're real.
  - matt-attack 3y ago
    I think that right there is the crux of the problem. To think yourself harmed because of what some strange is looking at in their own home is quite a bit odd. If I knew that someone had a naked painting of me on their wall and they were masterbating to it right now, should I really be bothered by that? Am I supposed to care what is in the head of a stranger?
    - Hizonner 3y ago
      Maybe, maybe not. If there are a bunch of strangers out there trading around the pictures and discussing, in graphic terms, what they'd like to do to you, maybe more likely. Especially when most of them seem to have no particular interest in thinking about what you might or might not be into. ... and especially if some of them are actively stalking you in real life, or if you tend to get stalked in real life in general. Which roughly 100 percent of major actresses do, and a nontrivial percentage of just random women. Creepy stalkers or worse are going to be heavily overrepresented among the people who produce or consume this material... and women who have actually been stalked are going to be overrepresented among the subjects. Oh, and by the way, if you were raised female, you're also pretty likely to have had experiences where (1) a bunch of people treated you as valuable only for your sexual potential, and acted disappointed or even angry if you did anything that reduced their ability to fantasize about how they wanted to use that potential; and (2) another bunch of people told you you were a worthless slut if you did anything sexual they didn't like. That can affect a person. I'm actually not ready to ban things, but I am not going to delude myself that there's no downside to that.
      - joker_minmax 3y ago
        Exactly, the issue is that you become a product in the eyes of others, and now realistic images of that product are clicks away. And it alters how you interface with the people around you and how they interface with you.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> How is it a “new problem” when painting has existed for a 1000 years and photo-realistic painted had existed for at least 100. The effort involved matters. Machine guns present societal challenges slingshots do not, despite them being essentially the same "throw an object at someone fast" technology.
- creer 3y ago
  Effort is over-rated and with "mere" creativity and taste you can get very satisfying results by cutting and pasting fragments of magazines (or fragments of vanilla internet photos.) Halle and Bill included.
  - Arainach 3y ago
    Effort is the core of the problem, as it affects speed and access. Most of the tech industry is built on scaling things and expanding access by making them cheaper. A government could pay 500 people to watch 500 cameras and look for someone, but cheap cameras and cheap storage to save weeks of footage and AI facial recognition raise societal problems even though by your definition no new capabilities were created.
    - creer 3y ago
      Effort is the core of SOME problems - like you describe - and not the core of others. There is an audience for personality porn. It's probably a medium audience for "real photos and videos" smuggled or hacked out. It's probably a small audience for fan fic style. I doubt it will keep many artists fed, with generative AI or not. There is a tiny market for revenge porn - and it's already highly illegal. Does it change things that anyone can now create revenge porn out of the blue? Yes, a little - you still need someone to want to use revenge porn. Does it shake the foundation of our civilization? No. This is a problem that was raised at the beginning of anonymous remailers. Some people were very upset to be receiving death threats "enabled by that remailer" and seemed totally unconcerned that someone close to them was mad enough to send death threats. Talk about misplaced concern. There is a big market for high-bandwidth porn: videos and streams. And for now it seems to crave volume and freshness. Even then, for now that market seems to crave humanness, real actual performers - all the better if you can message them. So even there, not much threat - for now.
cvalka 3y ago
It's time for a new moral panic but this time by progressives and European liberals. Video games cause violence and other great hits.
- pjc50 3y ago
  "Video games cause violence" is a classic conservative moral panic, usually wheeled out whenever there's been a mass shooting.
  - matt-attack 3y ago
    That's the point. The conservatives got up in arms about video game violence, but the left too can get over excited about similarly innocuous things in this case.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Actors can trademark their likeness and defamation is already a thing. If you try to sell art or photography of other people there is already settled law relating to that as well. AI just makes these disputes more common as the barrier to creating unauthorized works is lowered.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  This is an oversimplification. You absolutely can make and sell art depicting other people. Photographs in public, even if people are identifiable and don't consent to being photographed, can be sold [1]. Likewise, paintings depicting real people can be sold, even if the depict people in less than flattering scenarios, for example [2]. Defamation is a non-issue if people are transparent that it's a fictional work. Protections on one's image are actually quite narrow, mostly limited to advertisements and non-consensual photographs taken in private. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man_(painting) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man_(painting)
impomura 3y ago
I'm going to assume bad faith because the alternative would be to rude to you. If you wanted to paint a photorealistic halle berry having sex with whomevere you'd need years if not decades of art training. Or shelling a minimum of 500$ to commission an artist. Now I can have 25 different jpgs of that mental image in less than a hour of "work". And no you don't even have to write that piece of software, it's already online for free. If you don't see ho this is a new problem you should log off
- rightbyte 3y ago
  How is it a problem worth solving? Any solution implies limiting what I use my own computer for. Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares. If people use fake pictures for libel that is already illegal.
  - Arainach 3y ago
    >Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares. You answered your own question. If generative AI means that no one trusts any evidence and calls everything fake, that's a huge societal problem. We've already seen a certain subset of the population claiming that since 2016 with disastrous results (how do you convince someone who dismisses all evidence out of hand?)
    - creer 3y ago
      This sub-thread confuses all kinds of issues. About not blindly trusting photos, that ship has sailed. The tools exist. Have existed long before generative AI. Are accessible. Do not require very much "talent". That's done. You can't blindly trust photos. When you get a photo or a few photos - be it in a scientific paper or a tabloid web site - you can ask yourself whether it makes sense. You can consider the context. Generative AI does not change that.
      - Arainach 3y ago
        I strongly disagree. There is a huge difference between "photos can theoretically be faked, we need to consult an expert" and "everyone I know is using meme generators to post pictures of themselves in historical events, nothing is believable" in terms of societal trust.

cvalka 3y ago

[flagged]

joker_minmax 3y ago

Everyone can look at that and know it's a painting, not a real image. Most "photorealisfic" portraiture still looks visibly like a painting. Paintings can't move like a video can. The issue is misleading people with believable imagery. The issue is defamation. Apply it to yourself and your own image instead of Cosby.

cvalka 3y ago
This can be dealt with mandatory disclosures enforced by law that the imagery is AI generated and not real. But this solution will not satisfy you, will it?
- joker_minmax 3y ago
  So now you want the law further involved in pornography? Will fine print save someone's reputation like that? If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules.
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    > If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules. Yes... and by making laws around the distribution or labeling of this content they can be sued. The argument that criminals don't follow the law, so there should be no law is really weak. I dont really see a problem with requiring AI porn of non consensual 3rd parties to be labeled as such at a MINIMUM. Some amount of regulation could be required and shouldn't be dismissed outright given the societal harm that could be caused.
- creer 3y ago
  I could see artists voluntarily mentioning AI art in their captions. And on the forums I frequent, that's the current solution to keep the controversy down.
matt-attack 3y ago
So once my paints get “too” good (I.e. indistinguishable from a photo) then all of a sudden my benign art has transformed into a violation of the law? Or is now “problematic”? Btw that’s how photorealistic paintings already are.
- alexb_ 3y ago
  Actually, once your painting gets to any amount of recognizability at all for someone's image/likeness, it is a violation. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the internet has made us forget that these laws already exist because nobody has been enforcing them.
  - matt-attack 3y ago
    So you’re saying there are drawings I can make that somehow “violations”? Think about that. There’s a drawing I’m not allowed to draw. Like WFT. Talk about dystopian.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      You are not allowed to draw children in sexual acts in many places in the world. In some countries, you cant even draw god. These artistic limits have existed for a long time, but normally people don't rub up against them.
    - lakis 3y ago
      These laws already exist right now. Here is an example. You can't make a painting at the dimension of a dollar bill that's so authentic that looks exactly like a dollar bill. That's called counterfeiting and it's illegal on every country in the world I believe (for their own money of course).
      - Turing_Machine 3y ago
        That's an entirely different thing from being prohibited from making any likeness of George Washington (even if the image shows him having sex with Martha, Thomas Jefferson, or the entire Continental Congress).
Hizonner 3y ago
I don't think defamation is the issue. The idea behind defamation is that it's harmful to somebody if people believe bad things about them. People still feel harmed by these images even if absolutely nobody believes that they're real.
- matt-attack 3y ago
  I think that right there is the crux of the problem. To think yourself harmed because of what some strange is looking at in their own home is quite a bit odd. If I knew that someone had a naked painting of me on their wall and they were masterbating to it right now, should I really be bothered by that? Am I supposed to care what is in the head of a stranger?
  - Hizonner 3y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. If there are a bunch of strangers out there trading around the pictures and discussing, in graphic terms, what they'd like to do to you, maybe more likely. Especially when most of them seem to have no particular interest in thinking about what you might or might not be into. ... and especially if some of them are actively stalking you in real life, or if you tend to get stalked in real life in general. Which roughly 100 percent of major actresses do, and a nontrivial percentage of just random women. Creepy stalkers or worse are going to be heavily overrepresented among the people who produce or consume this material... and women who have actually been stalked are going to be overrepresented among the subjects. Oh, and by the way, if you were raised female, you're also pretty likely to have had experiences where (1) a bunch of people treated you as valuable only for your sexual potential, and acted disappointed or even angry if you did anything that reduced their ability to fantasize about how they wanted to use that potential; and (2) another bunch of people told you you were a worthless slut if you did anything sexual they didn't like. That can affect a person. I'm actually not ready to ban things, but I am not going to delude myself that there's no downside to that.
    - joker_minmax 3y ago
      Exactly, the issue is that you become a product in the eyes of others, and now realistic images of that product are clicks away. And it alters how you interface with the people around you and how they interface with you.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> How is it a “new problem” when painting has existed for a 1000 years and photo-realistic painted had existed for at least 100. The effort involved matters. Machine guns present societal challenges slingshots do not, despite them being essentially the same "throw an object at someone fast" technology.

creer 3y ago
Effort is over-rated and with "mere" creativity and taste you can get very satisfying results by cutting and pasting fragments of magazines (or fragments of vanilla internet photos.) Halle and Bill included.
- Arainach 3y ago
  Effort is the core of the problem, as it affects speed and access. Most of the tech industry is built on scaling things and expanding access by making them cheaper. A government could pay 500 people to watch 500 cameras and look for someone, but cheap cameras and cheap storage to save weeks of footage and AI facial recognition raise societal problems even though by your definition no new capabilities were created.
  - creer 3y ago
    Effort is the core of SOME problems - like you describe - and not the core of others. There is an audience for personality porn. It's probably a medium audience for "real photos and videos" smuggled or hacked out. It's probably a small audience for fan fic style. I doubt it will keep many artists fed, with generative AI or not. There is a tiny market for revenge porn - and it's already highly illegal. Does it change things that anyone can now create revenge porn out of the blue? Yes, a little - you still need someone to want to use revenge porn. Does it shake the foundation of our civilization? No. This is a problem that was raised at the beginning of anonymous remailers. Some people were very upset to be receiving death threats "enabled by that remailer" and seemed totally unconcerned that someone close to them was mad enough to send death threats. Talk about misplaced concern. There is a big market for high-bandwidth porn: videos and streams. And for now it seems to crave volume and freshness. Even then, for now that market seems to crave humanness, real actual performers - all the better if you can message them. So even there, not much threat - for now.

cvalka 3y ago

It's time for a new moral panic but this time by progressives and European liberals. Video games cause violence and other great hits.

pjc50 3y ago
"Video games cause violence" is a classic conservative moral panic, usually wheeled out whenever there's been a mass shooting.
- matt-attack 3y ago
  That's the point. The conservatives got up in arms about video game violence, but the left too can get over excited about similarly innocuous things in this case.

paulryanrogers 3y ago

Actors can trademark their likeness and defamation is already a thing. If you try to sell art or photography of other people there is already settled law relating to that as well. AI just makes these disputes more common as the barrier to creating unauthorized works is lowered.

Manuel_D 3y ago
This is an oversimplification. You absolutely can make and sell art depicting other people. Photographs in public, even if people are identifiable and don't consent to being photographed, can be sold [1]. Likewise, paintings depicting real people can be sold, even if the depict people in less than flattering scenarios, for example [2]. Defamation is a non-issue if people are transparent that it's a fictional work. Protections on one's image are actually quite narrow, mostly limited to advertisements and non-consensual photographs taken in private. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man_(painting) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man_(painting)

impomura 3y ago

I'm going to assume bad faith because the alternative would be to rude to you. If you wanted to paint a photorealistic halle berry having sex with whomevere you'd need years if not decades of art training. Or shelling a minimum of 500$ to commission an artist. Now I can have 25 different jpgs of that mental image in less than a hour of "work". And no you don't even have to write that piece of software, it's already online for free. If you don't see ho this is a new problem you should log off

rightbyte 3y ago
How is it a problem worth solving? Any solution implies limiting what I use my own computer for. Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares. If people use fake pictures for libel that is already illegal.
- Arainach 3y ago
  >Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares. You answered your own question. If generative AI means that no one trusts any evidence and calls everything fake, that's a huge societal problem. We've already seen a certain subset of the population claiming that since 2016 with disastrous results (how do you convince someone who dismisses all evidence out of hand?)
  - creer 3y ago
    This sub-thread confuses all kinds of issues. About not blindly trusting photos, that ship has sailed. The tools exist. Have existed long before generative AI. Are accessible. Do not require very much "talent". That's done. You can't blindly trust photos. When you get a photo or a few photos - be it in a scientific paper or a tabloid web site - you can ask yourself whether it makes sense. You can consider the context. Generative AI does not change that.
    - Arainach 3y ago
      I strongly disagree. There is a huge difference between "photos can theoretically be faked, we need to consult an expert" and "everyone I know is using meme generators to post pictures of themselves in historical events, nothing is believable" in terms of societal trust.