11 ms·

The change is now it takes about 5 seconds and a nice-ish computer instead of hours of skilled work.

_heimdall 3y ago
So is the problem that fake porn is being created, or the ease in which it can be created? The latter almost makes it sound like fake celebrity porn is more of an art form that should be appreciated and guarded from cheap knock offs.
- ender341341 3y ago
  > or the ease in which it can be created? It's the volume of it, which comes from the ease.
  - DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
    Also the speed with which they spread.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    So some fake celebrity porn is fine, but there's a line where we have too much?
    - calamari4065 3y ago
      Literally nobody but you has even suggested this.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        I'm not proposing it at all, I'm trying to clarify the comment chain I was replying to. It sure read to me as though the issue was with the ease of which fake porn can be created and distributed, not the porn itself. I wouldn't agree with that at all and wanted to make sure I understood them right before arguing against something I simply misread or misunderstood.
        ender341341 3y ago
        I’m not saying it was alright before, but it was more contained and now the volume is making it a bigger issue that more people are exposed to.
- gqcwwjtg 3y ago
  Kanye West did a music video with wax figures of nude celebrities including Taylor Swift and that had barely any backlash. Is it because he’s known as an artist? The price of the recreation? The way it’s distributed? Is creating fake images of someone nude in a somewhat sexual context meaningfully different from creating images of them actively engaging in sex acts? It’s almost like the problem is nobody claiming it as art they created.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Yeah maybe its the anonymous creation of it, I could see that being part of the difference at least. It is much easier to get angry about some random, anonymous person rather than a known entity. Maybe it also helps that you can't, and therefore don't have to, make the decision of whether to sue the creator for using your likeness.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    I remember some backlash about that. > Is creating fake images of someone nude in a somewhat sexual context meaningfully different from creating images of them actively engaging in sex acts? Yes.
- pretendgeneer 3y ago
  I'd say it's both. The old stuff Human created fakes have always drawn criticism but the amount and distribution was so limited that it was easy for people not directly affected to ignore or not know about it. Now the new Generated stuff is to prevalent and easy to produce it's too hard to ignore.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I'm skimming the comments here and barely anyone is mentioning the increased ease of distribution. It has evolved from upload to a single BBS, to upload to Usenet, to place on your own website, to place on a forum, to distribute like mad with retweets. > The latter almost makes it sound like fake celebrity porn is more of an art form that should be appreciated and guarded from cheap knock offs. Cheap, high-quality forgeries are still forgeries. Yes, forged currency did become an item more mentioned in the news when inkjet printers came into common use. This doesn't mean the old-school forgeries were "works of art worthy of appreciation and protection", or were ignored by the local news media when pertinent to the location they reported on.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    > I'm skimming the comments here and barely anyone is mentioning the increased ease of distribution. It has evolved from upload to a single BBS, to upload to Usenet, to place on your own website, to place on a forum, to distribute like mad with retweets. This is where I'm stuck, I don't really know where I land on whether its a problem we need solved or just a fact of how some people will use new tech. I wouldn't want someone posting fake nudes (or any photos for that matter) of me online, but I'm not sure if I have a right to stop them. Most aren't free speech absolutists, though I would hope that most would take issue with the idea of further limiting free speech based on new technologies that we don't have direct control over. Are there certain things I can write in a book but not write online? Or things I can write on my own site but not post to Twitter? I had no say in Twitter's creation, how does it have an impact on my personal freedoms? Edit: in addition - if I take issue with the current legal limit for free speech, can I simply develop a new form of distribution and claim that we now need to further limit free speech in response? That feels like a dangerous backdoor to attack constitutional rights without going through the courts or congress.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Speech about people needs to be truthful if possible, and also limited to the domain in which those people are salient. Free speech is bad when it means Joe Blow across the street is wrongfully called a pedophilic arsonist on the front page of the New York Times. And it's still kind of crappy when Bo Jellow's actual theft of $50 in Missouri is shamed in Europe. Twitter has mass play. It's effectively a worldwide public forum. There should be limits to what speech occurs on it, if only to keep the signal-to-noise ratio down so that genuinely important speech is less drowned out. > I wouldn't want someone posting fake nudes (or any photos for that matter) of me online, but I'm not sure if I have a right to stop them. It depends on where you live what the law allows. > though I would hope that most would take issue with the idea of further limiting free speech based on new technologies that we don't have direct control over People have been asking for limits on public posting of even non-fake "revenge" porn for years. Edit: > can I simply develop a new form of distribution and claim that we now need to further limit free speech in response? That feels like a dangerous backdoor to attack constitutional rights without going through the courts or congress. You can claim this while only positing a new form of distribution. Talking about policies and the limits of freedoms is one of the fundamental freedoms necessary to a well functioning democracy or republic. It's no attack, as the speech does not create law, or even policy, only the courts or congress or duly appointed regulators (pre-Chevron overturning[1]) can do that. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
- calamari4065 3y ago
  If a thing is bad, is it better or worse if you can make many, many more of them much, much faster?
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    In this case, probably better. I don't see any meaningful increase in harm going from, say, a million porn pictures to 100 million. But it does collapse the industry of paying more money to create the pictures. Here's a strawman example: AI child porn would probably be better for the world, because there would be no/far lower demand to actually abuse children, all else being equal (i.e., AI child porn still being illegal).

So is the problem that fake porn is being created, or the ease in which it can be created? The latter almost makes it sound like fake celebrity porn is more of an art form that should be appreciated and guarded from cheap knock offs.

ender341341 3y ago
> or the ease in which it can be created? It's the volume of it, which comes from the ease.
- DonsDiscountGas 3y ago
  Also the speed with which they spread.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  So some fake celebrity porn is fine, but there's a line where we have too much?
  - calamari4065 3y ago
    Literally nobody but you has even suggested this.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      I'm not proposing it at all, I'm trying to clarify the comment chain I was replying to. It sure read to me as though the issue was with the ease of which fake porn can be created and distributed, not the porn itself. I wouldn't agree with that at all and wanted to make sure I understood them right before arguing against something I simply misread or misunderstood.
      - ender341341 3y ago
        I’m not saying it was alright before, but it was more contained and now the volume is making it a bigger issue that more people are exposed to.
gqcwwjtg 3y ago
Kanye West did a music video with wax figures of nude celebrities including Taylor Swift and that had barely any backlash. Is it because he’s known as an artist? The price of the recreation? The way it’s distributed? Is creating fake images of someone nude in a somewhat sexual context meaningfully different from creating images of them actively engaging in sex acts? It’s almost like the problem is nobody claiming it as art they created.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Yeah maybe its the anonymous creation of it, I could see that being part of the difference at least. It is much easier to get angry about some random, anonymous person rather than a known entity. Maybe it also helps that you can't, and therefore don't have to, make the decision of whether to sue the creator for using your likeness.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I remember some backlash about that. > Is creating fake images of someone nude in a somewhat sexual context meaningfully different from creating images of them actively engaging in sex acts? Yes.
pretendgeneer 3y ago
I'd say it's both. The old stuff Human created fakes have always drawn criticism but the amount and distribution was so limited that it was easy for people not directly affected to ignore or not know about it. Now the new Generated stuff is to prevalent and easy to produce it's too hard to ignore.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I'm skimming the comments here and barely anyone is mentioning the increased ease of distribution. It has evolved from upload to a single BBS, to upload to Usenet, to place on your own website, to place on a forum, to distribute like mad with retweets. > The latter almost makes it sound like fake celebrity porn is more of an art form that should be appreciated and guarded from cheap knock offs. Cheap, high-quality forgeries are still forgeries. Yes, forged currency did become an item more mentioned in the news when inkjet printers came into common use. This doesn't mean the old-school forgeries were "works of art worthy of appreciation and protection", or were ignored by the local news media when pertinent to the location they reported on.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  > I'm skimming the comments here and barely anyone is mentioning the increased ease of distribution. It has evolved from upload to a single BBS, to upload to Usenet, to place on your own website, to place on a forum, to distribute like mad with retweets. This is where I'm stuck, I don't really know where I land on whether its a problem we need solved or just a fact of how some people will use new tech. I wouldn't want someone posting fake nudes (or any photos for that matter) of me online, but I'm not sure if I have a right to stop them. Most aren't free speech absolutists, though I would hope that most would take issue with the idea of further limiting free speech based on new technologies that we don't have direct control over. Are there certain things I can write in a book but not write online? Or things I can write on my own site but not post to Twitter? I had no say in Twitter's creation, how does it have an impact on my personal freedoms? Edit: in addition - if I take issue with the current legal limit for free speech, can I simply develop a new form of distribution and claim that we now need to further limit free speech in response? That feels like a dangerous backdoor to attack constitutional rights without going through the courts or congress.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Speech about people needs to be truthful if possible, and also limited to the domain in which those people are salient. Free speech is bad when it means Joe Blow across the street is wrongfully called a pedophilic arsonist on the front page of the New York Times. And it's still kind of crappy when Bo Jellow's actual theft of $50 in Missouri is shamed in Europe. Twitter has mass play. It's effectively a worldwide public forum. There should be limits to what speech occurs on it, if only to keep the signal-to-noise ratio down so that genuinely important speech is less drowned out. > I wouldn't want someone posting fake nudes (or any photos for that matter) of me online, but I'm not sure if I have a right to stop them. It depends on where you live what the law allows. > though I would hope that most would take issue with the idea of further limiting free speech based on new technologies that we don't have direct control over People have been asking for limits on public posting of even non-fake "revenge" porn for years. Edit: > can I simply develop a new form of distribution and claim that we now need to further limit free speech in response? That feels like a dangerous backdoor to attack constitutional rights without going through the courts or congress. You can claim this while only positing a new form of distribution. Talking about policies and the limits of freedoms is one of the fundamental freedoms necessary to a well functioning democracy or republic. It's no attack, as the speech does not create law, or even policy, only the courts or congress or duly appointed regulators (pre-Chevron overturning[1]) can do that. [1] - https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
calamari4065 3y ago
If a thing is bad, is it better or worse if you can make many, many more of them much, much faster?
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  In this case, probably better. I don't see any meaningful increase in harm going from, say, a million porn pictures to 100 million. But it does collapse the industry of paying more money to create the pictures. Here's a strawman example: AI child porn would probably be better for the world, because there would be no/far lower demand to actually abuse children, all else being equal (i.e., AI child porn still being illegal).