5 ms·

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 mov

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.

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.