5 ms·

I think we need to ask ourselves why a nude image of someone should ruin their life. That is something we as a society inflict on ourselves. We could just not c

by imgabe 3y ago

I think we need to ask ourselves why a nude image of someone should ruin their life. That is something we as a society inflict on ourselves. We could just not care if there's nude images of someone, then we wouldn't have to worry about it and there would be no incentive for bad actors to create them in the first place.

vivekd 3y ago
That's ridiculous. You're telling me if I took naked pictures of you and posted them in front of all your friends and family you would feel nothing. For a site that screams and cries about privacy of IP addresses and privacy of what sites you visit - apparently posting naked photos isn't a privacy violation? Human beings feel vulnerable when they are naked, and exposure like that is humiliating. This is not a western society thing, it's a human nature thing
- imgabe 3y ago
  Why should you feel humiliated? Would your friends and family mock you if they saw naked photos of you? You might need new friends and family if they would. Mine would be angry on my behalf that someone violated my privacy, but I wouldn’t expect them to act negatively towards me. Plenty of cultures don’t have the shame around nudity that we do. It is not at all universal and feeling humiliated is just that, a feeling. You can choose to feel a different way if you want.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - vivekd 3y ago
    >Plenty of cultures don’t have the shame around nudity that we do. You're mixing two things. The fact that there are nude beaches in Canada for example doesn't mean the women want sexualized nude images or wouldn't feel embarrassed or humiliated by that. There an important contextual difference you are missing. This whole you can choose is rubbish. It can be used to excuse any form of victimization. It's not sufficient to hurt, violate or victimize someone and tell them to choose to have a better perception or attitude about it. How about the people doing it change their attitudes on others privacy right and right to their integrity
    - imgabe 3y ago
      Yes! The people doing it should also change their attitudes. In the meantime, declaring your life “ruined” because of the existence of some AI hallucination of what your naked body might look like does not seem helpful. Further, any efforts to impose real consequences on the victim such as denying a job or expressing that they should feel shame (as if they have done something wrong) are also unhelpful and should be roundly mocked and derided.
      - shalmanese 3y ago
        Oh gee, it’s not helpful, thanks! Do you also explain to people who have recently been dumped that wallowing is not a productive activity and they should simply be in good relationships instead?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- poisonborz 3y ago
  It's exactly what he says and it's not a "human nature thing" but a learned protocol that no longer has any use, and can be unlearned. Just like racism and gender roles.
- taylodl 3y ago
  We're talking about AI-generated naked photos. We've reached the point where you should assume if you see naked photos of famous people or people you know then they're fake. The problem will go away when everybody ignores it.
happytoexplain 3y ago
"Just don't care" is, to put it lightly, not a useful distillation of what is a psychological goal that people have formed religions around a dedication to attempting.
- Uhhrrr 3y ago
  No one has formed religions around fake nudes, even despite the fact that it's been possible at least since the first cave paintings.
  - orbital-decay 3y ago
    Photorealistic fakes in particular only became a thing after the invention of photography. For something to be fake, you need the "real" counterpart that is assumed to be taken from reality and not just fantasized.
- imgabe 3y ago
  I’m not saying people need to achieve nirvana. When the bikini and the miniskirt came out people thought they were scandalous and the end of civilization. Then we all collectively decided that they aren’t a big deal. Now deepfake nudity is new and everyone is saying they are the end of civilization and if it happens to you your life is ruined. I mean, think about that phrase. Your whole life, ruined. No good anymore. Everything you ever were or could have been, destroyed. Instead, we could all just decide that this isn’t a big deal. Like we have about many, many things before. Wouldn’t that be better than irrevocably ruining someone’s life if this happens to them?
throwaway9274 3y ago
Sure, the eventual societal equilibrium of a world with instant AI-generated nude photography is that value of shame over nude photography inflates away to zero. But that’s cold comfort to a teenage girl being mocked from the next lunch table today.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
OhioMan2943 3y ago
I've heard this argument before but I think it's silly. Maybe people will always value their sexual privacy? There are benefits to not living in a hypersexualised society- Even though the genie isn't going back in the bottle with this one (AI Generated), in an ideal world we wouldn't have to treat this massive invasion of privacy as a given. This isn't a solution, it's a concession. Some social norms still have value and erasing all of them in the name of self determination and 'social safety' may push us into uncharted territory as a culture- the modern world has already made us impulsive enough.
- imgabe 3y ago
  What does it mean for a society to be "hypersexualized"? What is the appropriate level of sexualization? How do you even measure levels of sexualization of a society? Is there some sort of scale? People have been drawing naked pictures since they first figured out how to paint on cave walls. It's not going away. People have sex and are very interested in it. If they weren't we'd have died out as a species.
  - OhioMan2943 3y ago
    Yes we've had nude stuff before, but part of my point is we've developed as a society since cave times and it might be nice to keep things that way instead of heading into some AI-driven valueless pit, and abdicating these valuable things because 'it's too hard'. Also this is more about pornographic content (what is mentioned in the article) than nude art- there's a world of difference between having a crude charcoal sketch, a renaissance painting, and a degrading porn shot of someone.
    - poisonborz 3y ago
      > we've developed as a society since cave times and it might be nice to keep things that way What does that mean - "developed" mind shouln't be interested in sex? Does porn have to be degrading (for both sides)? You should better separate your own bias and then either have a better argument, or see the fallacy.
    - 3y ago
gjvnq 3y ago
I agree that as a society we should absolutely not judge people as being any worse simply because there are naked or sexual pics or vids of them floating around. In fact I would go further and just ban discrimination on sexuality and/or availability of sexual material of someone. This is specially important when it comes to employment and housing discrimination. However, laws aren't magic bullets and even it such a law were to be 100% followed, the creation of realistic fake sexual material of someone is definitely a serious violation of privacy and intimacy and thus people who make such materials ought be punished as for the violation of such fundamental rights. This is to say, punishment of fake nude creators should be irrespective of whether or not they caused emotional distress.
thefz 3y ago
Publicly post your nude images, then. But don't force it on those who do not want to do it.
- imgabe 3y ago
  I am not forcing anyone to do anything but things happen, obviously. It seems weirdly important to you that if this happens to someone they feel as bad about it as possible. Why is that?
GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
OP needs a harddrive check ASAP
korse 3y ago
nudes.ycombinator.com when? Paul Graham, are you out there!?

by imgabe 3y ago

vivekd 3y ago

That's ridiculous. You're telling me if I took naked pictures of you and posted them in front of all your friends and family you would feel nothing. For a site that screams and cries about privacy of IP addresses and privacy of what sites you visit - apparently posting naked photos isn't a privacy violation? Human beings feel vulnerable when they are naked, and exposure like that is humiliating. This is not a western society thing, it's a human nature thing

imgabe 3y ago
Why should you feel humiliated? Would your friends and family mock you if they saw naked photos of you? You might need new friends and family if they would. Mine would be angry on my behalf that someone violated my privacy, but I wouldn’t expect them to act negatively towards me. Plenty of cultures don’t have the shame around nudity that we do. It is not at all universal and feeling humiliated is just that, a feeling. You can choose to feel a different way if you want.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- vivekd 3y ago
  >Plenty of cultures don’t have the shame around nudity that we do. You're mixing two things. The fact that there are nude beaches in Canada for example doesn't mean the women want sexualized nude images or wouldn't feel embarrassed or humiliated by that. There an important contextual difference you are missing. This whole you can choose is rubbish. It can be used to excuse any form of victimization. It's not sufficient to hurt, violate or victimize someone and tell them to choose to have a better perception or attitude about it. How about the people doing it change their attitudes on others privacy right and right to their integrity
  - imgabe 3y ago
    Yes! The people doing it should also change their attitudes. In the meantime, declaring your life “ruined” because of the existence of some AI hallucination of what your naked body might look like does not seem helpful. Further, any efforts to impose real consequences on the victim such as denying a job or expressing that they should feel shame (as if they have done something wrong) are also unhelpful and should be roundly mocked and derided.
    - shalmanese 3y ago
      Oh gee, it’s not helpful, thanks! Do you also explain to people who have recently been dumped that wallowing is not a productive activity and they should simply be in good relationships instead?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
poisonborz 3y ago
It's exactly what he says and it's not a "human nature thing" but a learned protocol that no longer has any use, and can be unlearned. Just like racism and gender roles.
taylodl 3y ago
We're talking about AI-generated naked photos. We've reached the point where you should assume if you see naked photos of famous people or people you know then they're fake. The problem will go away when everybody ignores it.

happytoexplain 3y ago

"Just don't care" is, to put it lightly, not a useful distillation of what is a psychological goal that people have formed religions around a dedication to attempting.

Uhhrrr 3y ago
No one has formed religions around fake nudes, even despite the fact that it's been possible at least since the first cave paintings.
- orbital-decay 3y ago
  Photorealistic fakes in particular only became a thing after the invention of photography. For something to be fake, you need the "real" counterpart that is assumed to be taken from reality and not just fantasized.
imgabe 3y ago
I’m not saying people need to achieve nirvana. When the bikini and the miniskirt came out people thought they were scandalous and the end of civilization. Then we all collectively decided that they aren’t a big deal. Now deepfake nudity is new and everyone is saying they are the end of civilization and if it happens to you your life is ruined. I mean, think about that phrase. Your whole life, ruined. No good anymore. Everything you ever were or could have been, destroyed. Instead, we could all just decide that this isn’t a big deal. Like we have about many, many things before. Wouldn’t that be better than irrevocably ruining someone’s life if this happens to them?

throwaway9274 3y ago

Sure, the eventual societal equilibrium of a world with instant AI-generated nude photography is that value of shame over nude photography inflates away to zero. But that’s cold comfort to a teenage girl being mocked from the next lunch table today.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

OhioMan2943 3y ago

I've heard this argument before but I think it's silly. Maybe people will always value their sexual privacy? There are benefits to not living in a hypersexualised society- Even though the genie isn't going back in the bottle with this one (AI Generated), in an ideal world we wouldn't have to treat this massive invasion of privacy as a given. This isn't a solution, it's a concession. Some social norms still have value and erasing all of them in the name of self determination and 'social safety' may push us into uncharted territory as a culture- the modern world has already made us impulsive enough.

imgabe 3y ago
What does it mean for a society to be "hypersexualized"? What is the appropriate level of sexualization? How do you even measure levels of sexualization of a society? Is there some sort of scale? People have been drawing naked pictures since they first figured out how to paint on cave walls. It's not going away. People have sex and are very interested in it. If they weren't we'd have died out as a species.
- OhioMan2943 3y ago
  Yes we've had nude stuff before, but part of my point is we've developed as a society since cave times and it might be nice to keep things that way instead of heading into some AI-driven valueless pit, and abdicating these valuable things because 'it's too hard'. Also this is more about pornographic content (what is mentioned in the article) than nude art- there's a world of difference between having a crude charcoal sketch, a renaissance painting, and a degrading porn shot of someone.
  - poisonborz 3y ago
    > we've developed as a society since cave times and it might be nice to keep things that way What does that mean - "developed" mind shouln't be interested in sex? Does porn have to be degrading (for both sides)? You should better separate your own bias and then either have a better argument, or see the fallacy.
  - 3y ago

gjvnq 3y ago

I agree that as a society we should absolutely not judge people as being any worse simply because there are naked or sexual pics or vids of them floating around. In fact I would go further and just ban discrimination on sexuality and/or availability of sexual material of someone. This is specially important when it comes to employment and housing discrimination. However, laws aren't magic bullets and even it such a law were to be 100% followed, the creation of realistic fake sexual material of someone is definitely a serious violation of privacy and intimacy and thus people who make such materials ought be punished as for the violation of such fundamental rights. This is to say, punishment of fake nude creators should be irrespective of whether or not they caused emotional distress.

thefz 3y ago

Publicly post your nude images, then. But don't force it on those who do not want to do it.

imgabe 3y ago
I am not forcing anyone to do anything but things happen, obviously. It seems weirdly important to you that if this happens to someone they feel as bad about it as possible. Why is that?

GaryNumanVevo 3y ago

OP needs a harddrive check ASAP

korse 3y ago

nudes.ycombinator.com when? Paul Graham, are you out there!?