4 ms·

This is the next pearl clutching headline that people will be reading over and over for any models that generate images. "Oh no, the model can generate porn!"

This is the next pearl clutching headline that people will be reading over and over for any models that generate images. "Oh no, the model can generate porn!" "Oh no, it can generate realistic photos of people!" "Oh no, it can generate violent or racist images!" I'm so sick of people arguing that we should just shut down AI research or commercialization because it could be used maliciously. Think of how many grocery store products could be used maliciously if someone wanted to. Should we not allow people to buy bleach? Should we not allow knives to be sold? People need to get over their misgivings from this new technology and start taking accountability for that fact that models can be abused like any other tool. That doesn't mean we should just not give anyone access to them.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
So maliciously you gon need an Xray to see where it ended up! They prepping for desurgery now
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kmbfjr 3y ago
Sorry you are tired of people voicing legitimate concerns, perhaps you can tune them out and use your own likeness in pornography to help these companies speed things along. Ya know, take one for the team so to speak.
bobthepanda 3y ago
Is the article suggesting that it should be shut down entirely? I didn’t read that anywhere. I would actually think that its asking for basic accountability and due diligence.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Is the article suggesting that it should be shut down entirely? No, its misleading by selective focus (like the previous article it references) to get people to come to that conclusion themselves, a much more effective persusasive technique than the explicit demand because with the explicit demand people assume your evidence is selective to support the demand which may have ulterior motive, while they are less likely to do so if your presentation is superficially merely informative but actually selectively crafted to motivate a particular conclusion.
- riskable 3y ago
  The problem here is assuming that civitai would be the ones who are accountable. I don't think that's the case since they're just hosting a collection of perfectly legal Stable Diffusion checkpoints (aka "models"). The people who download a checkpoint and a LoRA (a special kind of sub-checkpoint or "model modifier" if you will) of some celebrity are the ones who would be generating something like porn using that celebrity's likeness. Not civitai. In this instance civitai is providing tools that can be used to generate unauthorized porn just like Home Depot provides tools that can be used to make illegal weapons. Is it illegal to make a LoRA of someone's likeness without their permission? No. Because until it is used to generate images which are then published it's like a gun in a safe, doing nothing... Just sitting there. There's no federal laws protecting likeness anyway (only certain states). So civitai has no real obligation there. Is it ethical to make a model of someone's likeness without their permission though? I don't know. To me, it's akin to taking a picture of someone in public... If they're in a public space they're "broadcasting" their likeness. You can make a really great LoRA of anyone's likeness with just a handful of images. If you're skilled you can probably do it with just one image (using some controlnet stuff).
kemotep 3y ago
I think there’s room for, allowing people to control their own likeness while not fully banning AI content generation. I mean, do people have a right to privacy? Is there some line between having privacy and infringing on someone’s freedom of expression through AI content generators that you would accept?
- a_wild_dandan 3y ago
  There is no unique likeness to control. You have thousands of doppelgangers, real and imagined. Want free expression/privacy? Don't control them.
  - kemotep 3y ago
    If I take your picture and record your voice in public and make a blockbuster movie staring you using this technology, you wouldn’t think that would be an issue? Presuming you are not a member of SAG-AFTRA.
dangerwill 3y ago
People have been using various chemicals for cleaning and knives for cooking for thousands of years. They are embedded in our culture. LLMs only became popular a year ago and the farthest back you can go with their origins is the 1950s. It is not at all unreasonable for people to say "hey should we require that this new tool have safeguards built in so it isn't horribly abused?", especially when you consider that these are not just tools that have been fashioned from the natural world, these are products provided by companies that are in some cases gleefully amoral. A space moving quickly is reason for more criticism and caution from the general public, not less. And if safeguards cannot be put into place by design into your tool, then that is malicious design
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> "Oh no, the model can generate porn!" "Oh no, it can generate realistic photos of people!" "Oh no, it can generate violent or racist images!" Right. So can paintbrushes. So can guys with deer antlers scratching on cave walls.

Obscurity4340 3y ago

So maliciously you gon need an Xray to see where it ended up! They prepping for desurgery now

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kmbfjr 3y ago

Sorry you are tired of people voicing legitimate concerns, perhaps you can tune them out and use your own likeness in pornography to help these companies speed things along. Ya know, take one for the team so to speak.

bobthepanda 3y ago

Is the article suggesting that it should be shut down entirely? I didn’t read that anywhere. I would actually think that its asking for basic accountability and due diligence.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Is the article suggesting that it should be shut down entirely? No, its misleading by selective focus (like the previous article it references) to get people to come to that conclusion themselves, a much more effective persusasive technique than the explicit demand because with the explicit demand people assume your evidence is selective to support the demand which may have ulterior motive, while they are less likely to do so if your presentation is superficially merely informative but actually selectively crafted to motivate a particular conclusion.
riskable 3y ago
The problem here is assuming that civitai would be the ones who are accountable. I don't think that's the case since they're just hosting a collection of perfectly legal Stable Diffusion checkpoints (aka "models"). The people who download a checkpoint and a LoRA (a special kind of sub-checkpoint or "model modifier" if you will) of some celebrity are the ones who would be generating something like porn using that celebrity's likeness. Not civitai. In this instance civitai is providing tools that can be used to generate unauthorized porn just like Home Depot provides tools that can be used to make illegal weapons. Is it illegal to make a LoRA of someone's likeness without their permission? No. Because until it is used to generate images which are then published it's like a gun in a safe, doing nothing... Just sitting there. There's no federal laws protecting likeness anyway (only certain states). So civitai has no real obligation there. Is it ethical to make a model of someone's likeness without their permission though? I don't know. To me, it's akin to taking a picture of someone in public... If they're in a public space they're "broadcasting" their likeness. You can make a really great LoRA of anyone's likeness with just a handful of images. If you're skilled you can probably do it with just one image (using some controlnet stuff).

kemotep 3y ago

I think there’s room for, allowing people to control their own likeness while not fully banning AI content generation. I mean, do people have a right to privacy? Is there some line between having privacy and infringing on someone’s freedom of expression through AI content generators that you would accept?

a_wild_dandan 3y ago
There is no unique likeness to control. You have thousands of doppelgangers, real and imagined. Want free expression/privacy? Don't control them.
- kemotep 3y ago
  If I take your picture and record your voice in public and make a blockbuster movie staring you using this technology, you wouldn’t think that would be an issue? Presuming you are not a member of SAG-AFTRA.

dangerwill 3y ago

People have been using various chemicals for cleaning and knives for cooking for thousands of years. They are embedded in our culture. LLMs only became popular a year ago and the farthest back you can go with their origins is the 1950s. It is not at all unreasonable for people to say "hey should we require that this new tool have safeguards built in so it isn't horribly abused?", especially when you consider that these are not just tools that have been fashioned from the natural world, these are products provided by companies that are in some cases gleefully amoral. A space moving quickly is reason for more criticism and caution from the general public, not less. And if safeguards cannot be put into place by design into your tool, then that is malicious design

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> "Oh no, the model can generate porn!" "Oh no, it can generate realistic photos of people!" "Oh no, it can generate violent or racist images!" Right. So can paintbrushes. So can guys with deer antlers scratching on cave walls.