4 ms·
"Nonconsensual AI porn" is a weasel term because it implies that it should be necessary to get someone's consent to create fake porn using their faces.
by vasdae 3y ago
"Nonconsensual AI porn" is a weasel term because it implies that it should be necessary to get someone's consent to create fake porn using their faces.
- bobthepanda 3y agoIt definitely should be. I don’t want my face used for porn if I just randomly shot a stock photo. Controlling likenesses in AI was the whole point of the SAG strike.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoWhat if I hired a human artist to hand draw the fake instead? What if they used Photoshop instead of drawing from a reference?
- bighead 3y agothats still a problem, don't you see it?
- brucethemoose2 3y agoHow can that possibly be enforced though? You can't really stop people from drawing or photoshopping stuff for personal use, and this is essentially a further extension of the technology.
- bobthepanda 3y agoPeople can, and do sue for that successfully. The fact that a small problem exists does not negate the existence of a larger problem.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoOnly if its published, or commercialized, right? Yeah, widely publishing or making money off of someone's likeness is a whole different can of worms. I was thinking for strictly personal use.
- bobthepanda 3y agoPresumably a16z is not investing in a company for personal use.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoWell that is worrying. Right now CivitAI is basically Stable Diffusion social media. It doesn't seem profitable at all, even of they are selling user data or getting subs or whatever. But if they start charging for downloads or whatever, they may cross a line into making money off likeness, and not just "hosting user content" like Facebook and Twitter and any oldschool image hosting service gets to say they do.
- dragonwriter 3y agoNonconsensual porn laws generally aren't restricted to commercial use, and some include fake images with intentional and recognizable use of likeness (some also don't, its a mixed bag.) Yes, commercial use of likeness is also an issue, and it may or may not be violated simply by distribution of something use the likeness on a commercial website like civitai.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoWon't section 230 cover the former?
- dragonwriter 3y agoSection 230 might cover right of publicity claims for an innocent host or user, but not for the user submitting the content. Revenge porn laws are generally criminal, and as such unaffected by Section 230.
- badrequest 3y ago"What if I had significantly increased barriers to doing this very inappropriate and deeply weird thing?"
- robertlagrant 3y ago> Controlling likenesses in AI was the whole point of the SAG strike. I think they had 5 or 6 demands.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Controlling likenesses in AI was the whole point of the SAG strike. No, it wasn't. It was one important issue in the strike, but there were others (streaming residuals were a big issue, for instance.)
- nmjohn 3y ago> because it implies that it should be necessary Who gets to decide what should or should not be necessary? Do you think your opinion about this is the majority view by people?
- lesuorac 3y agoWell, USA specific but don't you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#United_Stat...
- dragonwriter 3y ago“In the United States, the right of publicity is a state law–based right, as opposed to federal, and recognition of the right can vary from state to state.” So, the USA-specific answer is depends on the specific US state(s) whose law relevant to the action in controversy. There are countries with national rights in this area, but the USA is (and your source highlights this) not one of them.
- badrequest 3y agoIt should, obviously, be necessary to do this.
- tshaddox 3y agoAny term given to a specific criminal action will often be used to refer to that action with the implication that it’s a crime, yes.
- arrosenberg 3y agoIt unequivocally should. Stop abusing peoples' privacy or you are going to get your toys taken away...
- PheonixPharts 3y agoThe irony of course is that people are only able to create deepfakes of non-celebrities because social media has already gotten the average user very comfortable with letting go of their privacy.
- arrosenberg 3y agoTrue, but I'm not going to blame the average person for being the victim of industrialized psychology.
- vasdae 3y agoTaking a pornographic movie and putting someone's face in place of one of the actor's does not violate their privacy in any way, since nothing private was shared that wasn't private before (their face).
- arrosenberg 3y agoSharing a photo on Facebook doesn’t imply a public license for any pervert to use it for pornography. Don’t complain when that gets codified in law either — people like you are way too cavalier with other people’s livelihoods.
- a_wild_dandan 3y agoPeople are too entitled in trying to own a look. Can I spread porn fakes of myself? What if I look identical to Taylor Swift? Do I lose my right to free expression?
- arrosenberg 3y agoBlame Disney, not me. And I'd argue most individual people are interested in controlling what is done with their own visage more than anything. It's the same legal logic as revenge porn laws. If you are my enemy, all I have to do is find your sibling's Instagram account and I could make entire <yourlastname>hub website. > What if I look identical to Taylor Swift? Do I lose my right to free expression? Taylor Swift's corporate legal team would already do a pretty fine job of excising that right from you. No additional legislation needed.
- a_wild_dandan 3y agoWell said. If you fancy using my likeness as a dartboard, or in a meme, or as a Photoshop asset, or painted on a canvas, or drawn by AI, or mistakenly randomly generated, etc, great! Have fun. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I'm not entitled to categorically own/forbid using a look. That's nonsense and leads to self-inflicted quandaries: How do I know a video of unknown provenance contains me, not a dead ringer that gave consent? How different must a depiction be to not require my consent? 9 pixels? 30%, whatever that means? At least an eye color change? It's impossible to consistently enforce, presumptive, and effectively thought-policing a concept. In short: it's absurd.
- tshaddox 3y ago> How do I know a video of unknown provenance contains me, not a dead ringer that gave consent? > It's impossible to consistently enforce, presumptive, and effectively thought-policing a concept. In short: it's absurd. I mean, come on. It’s fine to disapprove of the law, but this isn’t some uniquely difficult thing that the legal system couldn’t possibly handle. It’s certainly nowhere near the level of complexity and ambiguity of, for instance, criminal fraud law, where things like the intent of the accused and the “reasonable person” are routinely crucial elements.
- dragonwriter 3y agoActually it is arguably higher level of complexity, because while intent is not normally an element for right of publicity, it has been looked to along with effect to disambiguate which cases that aren’t simple image or voice likenesses (such as voice impersonations) are nevertheless covered. But it is neither novel nor unique to AI.
- a_wild_dandan 3y agoAcross the internet spreads a noisy video. It's pornography with an absolute dead ringer celebrity face. There are no context clues -- physical SMT, celebrity references, video provenance, etc. What do?
- 3y ago
- bigbillheck 3y agoIt should be necessary to get someone's consent to create fake porn using their faces.