3 ms·

A good-faith reading of the sort of suggestion the author never made is for the blanket opt-in consent to allow other users generate images/videos of you to be

by smcin 1y ago

A good-faith reading of the sort of suggestion the author never made is for the blanket opt-in consent to allow other users generate images/videos of you to be segmented into separate consents for PG, adult, fetish etc.; also face/whole body. A very clear consent form that tells them upfront "If you consent to users generating fetish consent of you, here are some examples of what's allowed and forbidden". > Is the author suggesting we should stop people from creating fetish content of purely AI-generated characters? Presumably not, but she's farming outrage rather than suggesting any fix. In the above suggested setup, people could then generate fetish consent from the much smaller set of users who consented to have fetish consent generated from them. But then of course they might expect some royalties or revenue-sharing, or at least identification/attribution/watermarking so the depicted user could drive traffic to social-media. OpenAI is skirting around not just segmented consent but any concept of revenue-sharing (i.e. OpenAI wants to dip its toe into OnlyFans territory, but without any revenue-sharing or licensing deal with creators).

aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> OpenAI is skirting around not just segmented consent but any concept of revenue-sharing (i.e. OpenAI wants to dip its toe into OnlyFans territory, but without any revenue-sharing or licensing deal with creators). OpenAI is still doing basic experiments with which product offering are well received by users and/or work well and which are not. If some data provided by users (e.g. photos depicting the user) are seen to be very essential to the success of the AI-created content using this data so that OpenAI will likely loose an insane amount of money of these users leave (I think this is rather unlikely, but not impossible), then OpenAI will think about some concept of revenue-sharing, but not before (why should they?).
mslt 1y ago
Pointing out that something feels a little creepy, while explicitly stating that you don’t yuck other people’s yum is hardly “farming outrage.” We collectively need to have earnest conversations about how how emerging technologies affect our experiences, and her tone is pretty middle-of-the-road.
- quantified 1y ago
  Bow does other people doing things affect her, though?
- smcin 1y ago
  Intentionally opting into an AI platform where we would already foresee a subset of users would start generating sexual content of other users without their knowledge, then professing to be surprised about it, seems contrived. OpenAI had just allowed porn and violence, and we already know a subset of their users will obsessively push the guardrails (plus there's a financial incentive to). The only parts of the article that seem to be news are a) OpenAI's blanket consent is very broad and doesn't warn users what might be done with cameos, or segment consent into various different types of content use (as even 25yo modeling sites do) b) that subset of users will bypass the guardrails and c) OpenAI doesn't close the feedback loop by notifying the users in a) what the users in set b) are doing, let alone allow revising or revoking consent. But why is the conversation only about b) (the predictable bad behavior by users) rather than a) and c) (feasible solutions)? Notopoulos correctly remarks: "part of an overall pattern of how OpenAI has approached the concept of copyright and intellectual property: asking forgiveness, not permission." By the way previous (non-sexual-content) incarnations of this sort of issue are 2019 when Clearview scraped 3 billion images non-consensually from people's social-media and state DMVs [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35421117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35421117]. Or the previous 2024 OpenAI/Scarlett Johansson-sounding voice shenanigans. Or the existing proliferation of AI porn elsewhere.

by smcin 1y ago

aleph_minus_one 1y ago

> OpenAI is skirting around not just segmented consent but any concept of revenue-sharing (i.e. OpenAI wants to dip its toe into OnlyFans territory, but without any revenue-sharing or licensing deal with creators). OpenAI is still doing basic experiments with which product offering are well received by users and/or work well and which are not. If some data provided by users (e.g. photos depicting the user) are seen to be very essential to the success of the AI-created content using this data so that OpenAI will likely loose an insane amount of money of these users leave (I think this is rather unlikely, but not impossible), then OpenAI will think about some concept of revenue-sharing, but not before (why should they?).

mslt 1y ago

Pointing out that something feels a little creepy, while explicitly stating that you don’t yuck other people’s yum is hardly “farming outrage.” We collectively need to have earnest conversations about how how emerging technologies affect our experiences, and her tone is pretty middle-of-the-road.

quantified 1y ago
Bow does other people doing things affect her, though?
smcin 1y ago
Intentionally opting into an AI platform where we would already foresee a subset of users would start generating sexual content of other users without their knowledge, then professing to be surprised about it, seems contrived. OpenAI had just allowed porn and violence, and we already know a subset of their users will obsessively push the guardrails (plus there's a financial incentive to). The only parts of the article that seem to be news are a) OpenAI's blanket consent is very broad and doesn't warn users what might be done with cameos, or segment consent into various different types of content use (as even 25yo modeling sites do) b) that subset of users will bypass the guardrails and c) OpenAI doesn't close the feedback loop by notifying the users in a) what the users in set b) are doing, let alone allow revising or revoking consent. But why is the conversation only about b) (the predictable bad behavior by users) rather than a) and c) (feasible solutions)? Notopoulos correctly remarks: "part of an overall pattern of how OpenAI has approached the concept of copyright and intellectual property: asking forgiveness, not permission." By the way previous (non-sexual-content) incarnations of this sort of issue are 2019 when Clearview scraped 3 billion images non-consensually from people's social-media and state DMVs [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35421117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35421117]. Or the previous 2024 OpenAI/Scarlett Johansson-sounding voice shenanigans. Or the existing proliferation of AI porn elsewhere.