… and this is probably where the article should’ve ended. Or in fact, where the author should’ve realized there didn’t need to be an article at all.
People are weird and gross. They do weird things that we would often prefer they not. Sora provided a tool to avoid that weirdness. Use it.
If we know anything about software in general (and AI specifically) getting around roadblocks is often a fairly simple thing.
Probably not. AI slop doesn't really "go viral" except when it is super ridiculous like shrimp Jesus. Most people generating AI slop porn are likely in the 10s of people who will see it. If someone generates porn with my face on it and I never even know, how does this harm me? Why should I care?
You would presumably care if one of those "10s of people" was a family member or peer.
Maybe not caring is enlightened of you, but it shouldn't stretch your imagination to consider why others would.
The fact that the AI industry is apparently littered with incredibly immature guys who perceive themselves to be Randian superheros does not reassure me that this tool is going to be better.
However, using a wannabe AI social media platform to engage with this stuff (and said platform encouraging you to do so), is crossing several uncomfortable lines for me.
https://www.businessinsider.com/threads-meta-engagement-rage...
Clearly the author has never visited 4chan... but I think seeing others make such content with your appearance should be taken as flattery.
More seriously, I hope this flood of easy video generation will cause people to more easily realise how they can be persuaded, and increase skepticism of evidence in general.
I think maybe you're an adult male.
Having actually talked to some female friends about this, I'm pretty sure that women in general don't take so well to the idea of tools that might be used to encourage the fantasies of the men that already have a dangerous interest in harming them sexually.
Whether the Valley thinks that's their problem to solve, I doubt. But making a joke out of it is pretty fucked up, dude.
ETA: even women who have done some modelling and are a bit more aware of the way those images are used are at least somewhat concerned about content that can make them act and speak like puppets. This is at least as much about consent as it is about content.
ETA2: I am rate-limited for being an argumentative sod in the past so I will finally edit this to note that 1) I am replying only to the sentence I quoted which has very troubling connotations, and 2) I really think a lot of people here seem not to have read Julian Dibbell's crucial 1993 article "A Rape In Cyberspace" and it really shows.
This assumption sounds like being taken from some feminist manifesto.
Much like when that AI executive dude started talking about layers of hidden reality or whatever it was, that some LLM helped him "find": people were clear that whatever his problems, he might not have blurted that shit out loud, or even developed those thoughts as much, if it were not for the reassurance loop of whatever tool was helping him go a bit more mad.
We understand what happened in his case, right? Perhaps he was keeping that under control and then wasn't, because it was all so plausible.
Now imagine it being video of some young woman realistically depicted doing things she has not consented to do, in the hands of a man who is obsessed and is just keeping that under control. An obsessive fan, for example.
I get your point, but I’ve never seen any research into whether this material makes people more or less likely to actually perpetrate crimes related to it.
A chat loop is a bit different from a static video/photo.
(As commented elsewhere, the author expressly opted-in, apparently with the intent of generating ragebait to write an article about.)
Post body or gtfo
(for those lacking context, this is a callback to a 4chan trope that is inextricable from OP's argument)
I can't figure out the tone here. Is the author suggesting we should stop people from creating fetish content of purely AI-generated characters? OpenAI might want to for business reasons, but surely there's nothing inherently wrong with using AI for fetish content. Should we also stop people from drawing fetish content with pencil and paper?
A lot of social media is a sex platform, and it got mixed up in this way because there’s no talking adults out of being lewd in public.
> 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).
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?).
You have no expectation of privacy in public spaces since forever, that is not a problem. Because nobody can photograph you stabbing someone and uploading it on social media without you actually stabbing someone. This is now different, because anyone now can make that photograph of you stabbing someone and post it.
That must be your argument.
And it must be on the social media side, because in X months some open model on GitHub is gonna make every watermark or cloud-based safety feature meaningless anyway.
So the author specifically allowed their face to be used for content and then is surprised people acted on it? This is silly imo.
People should just never even allow their face to be used for this.
This reminds me of the "Joanne is awful" episode from black mirror. Exact same story.
So this is silly yes but people can still easily make deepfake porn of you from any photo available with other oss tools
The app allows you to control if other people can generate photos of you. If the author doesn't want other people to make these photos, disable public video generation...
My mental test for deciding whether something should be illegal or unacceptable is questioning if any one would see it the same if religion never existed.
During #metoo I remember reading an article where the author was uncomfortable with the “drug fueled sex parties in Silicon Valley.” They basically didn’t want consenting adults to do drugs or engage in group sex. The argument against fetish content with AI generated characters reminded me of the #metoo author’s discomfort with the drug/sex freedom of the Bay Area. The article about Sora sounds like the author is uncomfortable with people generating fetish content, regardless of the content featuring real people or not.
It’s sad that the liberals now include the prudes/conservatives.
I also don’t think one is a prude or a conservative for thinking there are consent and power issues around anything that commingles sex and the workplace.
Things can be unacceptable without being illegal. Things can even be unacceptable without needing to be banned or privately controlled.
My bar for what should be unacceptable is a lot lower than my bar for what should be illegal or privately banned.
Making weird pregnancy fetish videos of real people without their permission is definitely unacceptable. I have no issue with the idea that anyone doing that should be shamed.
panny•1h ago
>The internet is for porn
I actually think this is what's going to happen with AI once the easy money dries up. They'll quickly race to the bottom selling porn generators. AI slop porn already seems like the majority usage after homework generation.
JKCalhoun•1h ago
redwood•1h ago
QuadmasterXLII•1h ago
This is all independent of what is and isn’t a legitimate business model, it’s a social dynamic. It’s also a pretty familiar one: it shows up everywhere from nightclub bouncer policies to the dynamics of early 2000s irc rooms
panny•1h ago
threatofrain•19m ago