5 ms·

Agree, I think it fundamentally stems from the old conservative view that porn = bad. Morally policing such models is questionable.

rockooooo 3y ago
no AI company wants to be the one generating pornographic deepfakes of someone and getting in legal / PR hot water
- seanw444 3y ago
  Which is why this should be a much more decentralized effort. Hard to take someone to court when it's not one single person or company doing something.
- mrkramer 3y ago
  But what if you flip the things the other way around; deepfake porn is problematic not because porn is per se problematic but because deepfake porn or deepfake revenge porn is made without consent, but what if you give consent to some AI company or porn company to make porn content of you. I see this as evolution of OnlyFans where you could make AI generated deepfake porn of yourself. Another use case would be that retired porn actors could license their porn persona (face/body) to some AI porn company to make new porn. I see big business opportunity in the generative AI porn.
Cookingboy 3y ago
This is why I think generative AI tech should either be banned or be completely open sourced. Mega tech corporations are plenty of things already, they don't need to be the morality police for our society too.
- pksebben 3y ago
  Even if it is all open sourced, we still have the structural problem of training models large enough to do interesting stuff. Until we can train incrementally and distribute the workload scalably, it doesn't matter how open the models / methods for training are if you still need a bajilllion A100 hours to train the damn things.
echelon 3y ago
Horeshoe theory [1] is one of the most interesting viewpoints I've been introduced to recently. Both sides view censorship as a moral prerogative to enforce their world view. Some conservatives want to ban depictions of sex. Some conservatives want to ban LGBT depictions. Some women's rights folks want to ban depictions sex. (Some view it as empowerment, some view it as exploitation.) Some liberals want to ban non-diverse, dangerous representation. Some liberals want to ban conservative views against their thoughts. Some liberals want to ban religion. ... It's team sports with different flavors on each side. The best policy, IMO, is to avoid centralized censorship and allow for individuals to control their own algorithmic boosting / deboosting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
- stared 3y ago
  Yes and no. I mean, a lot of moderates would like to avoid seeing any extreme content, regardless of whether it is too much left, right, or just in a non-political uncanny valley. While the Horseshoe Theory has some merits (e.g., both left and right extremes may favor justified coercion, have the we-vs-them mentality, etc), it is grossly oversimplified. Still, a very simple (yet two-dimensional) model of Political Compass is much better.
  - echelon 3y ago
    I think it's just a different projection to highlight similarities in left and right and is by no means the only lens to use. The fun quirk is that there are similarities, and this model draws comparison front and center. There are multiple useful models for evaluating politics, though.
- crashmat 3y ago
  I don't think there are any (even far) leftwanting to ban non-diverse representation. I think it's impossible to ban 'conservative thoughts' because that's such a poorly defined phrase. However there are people who want to ban religion. One difference is that a much larger proportion of far right (almost all of them) want to ban lgbtq depiction and existence compared to the number of far left who want to ban religion or non-diverse representation. It says on the wikipedia article itself 'The horseshoe theory does not enjoy wide support within academic circles; peer-reviewed research by political scientists on the subject is scarce, and existing studies and comprehensive reviews have often contradicted its central premises, or found only limited support for the theory under certain conditions.'

rockooooo 3y ago

no AI company wants to be the one generating pornographic deepfakes of someone and getting in legal / PR hot water

seanw444 3y ago
Which is why this should be a much more decentralized effort. Hard to take someone to court when it's not one single person or company doing something.
mrkramer 3y ago
But what if you flip the things the other way around; deepfake porn is problematic not because porn is per se problematic but because deepfake porn or deepfake revenge porn is made without consent, but what if you give consent to some AI company or porn company to make porn content of you. I see this as evolution of OnlyFans where you could make AI generated deepfake porn of yourself. Another use case would be that retired porn actors could license their porn persona (face/body) to some AI porn company to make new porn. I see big business opportunity in the generative AI porn.

Cookingboy 3y ago

This is why I think generative AI tech should either be banned or be completely open sourced. Mega tech corporations are plenty of things already, they don't need to be the morality police for our society too.

pksebben 3y ago
Even if it is all open sourced, we still have the structural problem of training models large enough to do interesting stuff. Until we can train incrementally and distribute the workload scalably, it doesn't matter how open the models / methods for training are if you still need a bajilllion A100 hours to train the damn things.

echelon 3y ago

Horeshoe theory [1] is one of the most interesting viewpoints I've been introduced to recently. Both sides view censorship as a moral prerogative to enforce their world view. Some conservatives want to ban depictions of sex. Some conservatives want to ban LGBT depictions. Some women's rights folks want to ban depictions sex. (Some view it as empowerment, some view it as exploitation.) Some liberals want to ban non-diverse, dangerous representation. Some liberals want to ban conservative views against their thoughts. Some liberals want to ban religion. ... It's team sports with different flavors on each side. The best policy, IMO, is to avoid centralized censorship and allow for individuals to control their own algorithmic boosting / deboosting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

stared 3y ago
Yes and no. I mean, a lot of moderates would like to avoid seeing any extreme content, regardless of whether it is too much left, right, or just in a non-political uncanny valley. While the Horseshoe Theory has some merits (e.g., both left and right extremes may favor justified coercion, have the we-vs-them mentality, etc), it is grossly oversimplified. Still, a very simple (yet two-dimensional) model of Political Compass is much better.
- echelon 3y ago
  I think it's just a different projection to highlight similarities in left and right and is by no means the only lens to use. The fun quirk is that there are similarities, and this model draws comparison front and center. There are multiple useful models for evaluating politics, though.
crashmat 3y ago
I don't think there are any (even far) leftwanting to ban non-diverse representation. I think it's impossible to ban 'conservative thoughts' because that's such a poorly defined phrase. However there are people who want to ban religion. One difference is that a much larger proportion of far right (almost all of them) want to ban lgbtq depiction and existence compared to the number of far left who want to ban religion or non-diverse representation. It says on the wikipedia article itself 'The horseshoe theory does not enjoy wide support within academic circles; peer-reviewed research by political scientists on the subject is scarce, and existing studies and comprehensive reviews have often contradicted its central premises, or found only limited support for the theory under certain conditions.'