4 ms·

The basic obvious issue is “can you draw porn of someone”. The implied answer here appears to be “no” and the reason this is deemed necessary is an emergent ef

The basic obvious issue is “can you draw porn of someone”. The implied answer here appears to be “no” and the reason this is deemed necessary is an emergent effect of scale of being able to do this at such volume and quality. Saying you can’t draw porn of people without regard to implied authenticity or medium seems somehow more reasonable to me.

ryandrake 3y ago
There just seems to be so much gray area here. Where is the burden of proof? Can someone argue that the depiction is of a fictional person who just looks similar to Plaintiff? How similar is too similar? Who's the judge of similarity? What if the training data did not contain any pictures of Plaintiff and the results were just tuned until it looked like him/her? What if Plaintiff has a twin sibling or someone who looks just like him/her and that person consented? What a mess--who's going to litigate all of this?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  I don’t feel like anything is implying similarity is sufficient to make an artwork criminal. Although I might call out the opposite problem of making it a crime to request a sfw picture of a specific person and have the model generate something porny
- numpad0 3y ago
  There's so much gray area because some people desperately wants porn banned than abuses and harms punished, and clarifying gray areas all the way removes side effects on purely generative porn. Personally I think head-swap porns should be handled with defamation logic than general anti-porn laws. I find it more likely that I would be disgusted by deepfake porn of mine if I were to become such public figure that warrants it, than appreciating it, but it feels weirder that local police would be deciding whether am I to like it or not.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    This is not a blanket ban on generated porn.
- chrisjj 3y ago
  “It’s essential that the police and prosecutors are equipped with the training and tools required to rigorously enforce these laws in order to stop perpetrators from acting with impunity.” We don't even have a tool that could reliably ID the subject of such a processed visual depiction.
- shpx 3y ago
  > Who's the judge of similarity? The judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it The justice system is a computer made out of humans executing written programs called laws. As we've seen from decades of computer vision research, writing out an image classifier in a finite set of symbols is intractable. So instead the justice system queries an oracle (a human) to do the image classification. Maybe in the future there will be a way to compile a learned image classifier into a set of directions in English and we will have laws that are followed by pages of what is essentially a small artificial neural network represented as an English flowchart, but I doubt it, that sounds dumber than asking a person to do it. You just have to make sure you're picking the right person to do the deciding.

ryandrake 3y ago

There just seems to be so much gray area here. Where is the burden of proof? Can someone argue that the depiction is of a fictional person who just looks similar to Plaintiff? How similar is too similar? Who's the judge of similarity? What if the training data did not contain any pictures of Plaintiff and the results were just tuned until it looked like him/her? What if Plaintiff has a twin sibling or someone who looks just like him/her and that person consented? What a mess--who's going to litigate all of this?

jncfhnb 3y ago
I don’t feel like anything is implying similarity is sufficient to make an artwork criminal. Although I might call out the opposite problem of making it a crime to request a sfw picture of a specific person and have the model generate something porny
numpad0 3y ago
There's so much gray area because some people desperately wants porn banned than abuses and harms punished, and clarifying gray areas all the way removes side effects on purely generative porn. Personally I think head-swap porns should be handled with defamation logic than general anti-porn laws. I find it more likely that I would be disgusted by deepfake porn of mine if I were to become such public figure that warrants it, than appreciating it, but it feels weirder that local police would be deciding whether am I to like it or not.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  This is not a blanket ban on generated porn.
chrisjj 3y ago
“It’s essential that the police and prosecutors are equipped with the training and tools required to rigorously enforce these laws in order to stop perpetrators from acting with impunity.” We don't even have a tool that could reliably ID the subject of such a processed visual depiction.
shpx 3y ago
> Who's the judge of similarity? The judge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it The justice system is a computer made out of humans executing written programs called laws. As we've seen from decades of computer vision research, writing out an image classifier in a finite set of symbols is intractable. So instead the justice system queries an oracle (a human) to do the image classification. Maybe in the future there will be a way to compile a learned image classifier into a set of directions in English and we will have laws that are followed by pages of what is essentially a small artificial neural network represented as an English flowchart, but I doubt it, that sounds dumber than asking a person to do it. You just have to make sure you're picking the right person to do the deciding.