Each of these reads like an extremely horny and angry man yelling their basest desires at Pornhub’s search function.

  • diffuselight@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    you are answering a question with a different question. LLMs don’t make pictures of your mom. And this particular question?. One that has roughly existed since Photoshop existed.

    It just gets easier every year. It was already easy. You could already pay someone 15 bucks on Fiver to do all of that, for years now.

    Nothing really new here.

    The technology is also easy. Matrix math. About as easy to ban as mp3 downloads. Never stopped anyone. It’s progress. You are a medieval knight asking to put gunpowder back into the box, but it’s clear it cannot be put back - it is already illegal to make non consensual imagery just as it is illegal to copy books. And yet printers exist and photocopiers exist.

    Let me be very clear - accepting the reality that the technology is out there, it’s basic, easy to replicate and on a million computers now is not disrespectful to victims of no consensual imagery.

    You may not want to hear it, but just like with encryption, the only other choice society has is full surveillance of every computer to prevent people from doing “bad things”. everything you complain about is already illegal and has already been possible - it just gets cheaper every year. What you want to have protection from is technological progress because society sucks at dealing with the consequences of it.

    To be perfectly blunt, you don’t need to train any generative AI model for powerful deepfakes. You can use technology like Roop and Controlnet to synthesize any face on any image from a singe photograph. Training not necessary.

    When you look at it that way, what point is there to try to legislate training with these arguments? None.

    • Urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not making an argument to ban it. I’m just pointing out you’re pretending a model from text someone wrote is similar to a model that makes nonconcentual porn.

      I don’t think it can be banned, it’s just something they will need to encorperate into revenge porn laws, if it isn’t already covered.

      I’m just pointing out your comment sucked.

      • diffuselight@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s already covered under those laws. So what are you doing that’s different from ChatGPT hallucinating here ?

        Those laws don’t spell out the tools (photoshop); they hinge on reproducing likeness.

        • Urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh good, someone who has read every revenge porn law, ever. I’m glad they work exactly the same, in every nation and state.

          Anyway, I must be hallucinating, true, because it seems you keep attacking what I’m saying, instead of defending the comment you made earlier that I took issue with, the one that points out you’re being needlessly hostile.