Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway382938 | Hacker News Reader

Personal opinion:

These models are capable of generating photorealistic child pornography. That's why they're not being released.

I have no evidence to back this up, other than anecdotal. All the hand waving vague posts from SD, DALLE etc read like PR tactics to avoid getting the spotlight from the media and governments.

No one wants to post about this but I think everyone knows it's true, as soon as Congress realizes what these models can be used for there's going to be a moral panic.

EDIT: All of the replies are assuming I'm saying this is a good reason for not releasing these models. I don't say that anywhere nor do I agree with it.

View on HN

Photoshop can achieve the same thing. So can women hired by pornography companies that are 18 but look younger and intentionally dress like school girls. This excuse is nonsense in the context of what's already available.

I didn't say it's a good reason to not release the models, it's just why I think they aren't being released.

You should strive to respond to the strongest interpretation of what you read and not the weakest one.

Sure, they can come up with countless weak excuses if they're dead-set on not revealing the real reason, that goes without saying.

No it doesn't go without saying. People will only come up with countless weak excuses if their real reason isn't being addressed. That happens because no matter how many weak excuses you address, their real reason remains standing and continues to motivate them to block AI tooling.

If their "real reason" of CP use cases doesn't exist right now because AI tooling explicitly bans CP use cases, they have no reason to block AI tools.

> So can women hired by pornography companies that are 18 but look younger and intentionally dress like school girls.

I've yet to see an 18 year old that looks like an actual child regardless of how they're dressed however I'm also not looking for this sort of thing so...

Reminded of how the first film role for veteran British character actress Helen Mirren was playing a naked 17 year old in a film called, er, Age of Consent. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063991/ ; she was 24.

This kind of thing happened a lot, and I think more than one entirely "mainstream" director in the 60s/70s filmed nude actresses below the age of 18. Fortunately it's a lot harder to get away with that these days. Not to mention (Weinstein and many, many others) sexually assaulting the actresses off screen.

I know two separate people in real life that are in their twenties but don't look a day over 14. I don't know if it is some hormonal thing or just extraordinarily youthful looks.

My sister-in-law tried to rent a bike at Disneyworld once, and was told she had to be at least 14.

Her entirely involuntary response was to exclaim, "Lady, I'm damn near 30!"

So yes; if a 28-year-old can be mistaken for younger than 14 without trying (or even wanting to), there are plenty of 18-year-olds who can appear much younger, especially if they are using makeup, acting tricks, and other means to artificially enhance that.

The day I turned 18 I still looked like I was 17.

How could you know you’ve never met one? Do you ask every person who looks younger than 18 if they’re actually a minor or not?

Let’s also remember why CP is illegal in the first place: because children are manipulated and ultimately harmed in order to create it. I don’t see an ethical or moral problem with digitally generated content of that nature since children aren't being harmed. Am I missing something?

That’s why this whole argument is BS. It panders to those that think these things are illegal because “ew that’s gross” without actually taking the time to argue how AI slots in ethically to their worldview. Discussions about AI license laundering content are far more relevant and interesting.

What you're missing is that there are many people who think these things are illegal because "ew that's gross" and they also elect politicians who agree with them.

The United States has barely moved past the issue of homosexuality even though it harms no one, it is perhaps the most straightforward modern example of people trying to ban it due to personal & traditional disgust. Although there is a general majority approval for it, that doesn't carry to the electoral level where it remains a contentious partisan issue. But you think the ethics of CP & pedophilia will be discussed and legislated rationally?

I didn't say it's a good reason to not release the models, it's just why I think they aren't being released.

You should strive to respond to the strongest interpretation of what you read and not the weakest one.

I’m confused. I did respond to your argument which is that these things can do harm so people are trying to be responsible. My response is “actually no harm is being done so what’s the ethical problem”? The part that’s BS is when people who espouse this argument wave their hands and pull actual tangible harm out of thin air and and claim that these models are capable of causing it.

(You also suggested some impending moral panic. I don’t buy it.)

Using the same logic lets ban the sale of kitchen knifes, they can be used for stabbing people.

The UK prohibits the sale of knives to under-16s in the same way as it does cigarettes and alcohol.

We've not even begun to ask the question of whether there are ethical problems of exposing children to unregulated AI and vice versa.

I didn't say it's a good reason to not release the models, it's just why I think they aren't being released.

You should strive to respond to the strongest interpretation of what you read and not the weakest one.

You’re being overly dramatic. People are responding to your argument which was “these things are capable of harm which is why they’re not being released and congress is gonna freak because ethics”. People are highlighting why this is a BS argument, whether you fully espouse it is not really relevant. You presented it so thats what’s being rebutted.

I genuinely suggest you take the time to re-read their comment. Their argument was not that "these things are capable of harm"!

All of us can be tempted into overly quick responses without truly reading what we're responding to.

Maybe I drew the wrong conclusion from their comment, but the entire comment is structured under a presumption that AI generated CP is harmful, otherwise why would they have included the whole social political section? If that’s not what was meant then my bad. My point still stands and I don’t think I gave the commenter any grief. I just called an argument that they potentially didn't make BS.

It is structured under the presumption that some people think that AI generated CP is harmful, and AI researcher think that some people think that AI generated CP is harmful, and are afraid of the potential backlash.

The commenter did not necessarily adopt any of these positions themselves.

I agree that you were civil about it and no harm was done other than a bumpier than necessary comment thread.

>These models are capable of generating photorealistic child pornography. That's why they're not being released.

Is this true, have you seen it or just heard about it? because what I seen is that the AI is bad, the faces are wrong, the fingers are wrong,t he hands and legs are often connected wrong, you can get very often more then 2 legs more then 5 fingers. I seen a community that focus on waifus, this images are not realistic, are obvious carton, animation styles and similar images were created already with digital painting tools.

I also did not seen any porn scene generated by AI, I don't think the model was trained on porn scenes so at best you will get puritans removing breasts from the models, including art , but for sure I want to see how they will ensure that the AI can only generate male nipples and not women ones.

> Is this true, have you seen it or just heard about it?

I have seen it. SD is capable of generating CP that is indistinguishable from a real photograph with correct anatomy.

> I also did not seen any porn scene generated by AI

There are user made SD models trained on porn available for months now.

>I have seen it. SD is capable of generating CP that is indistinguishable from a real photograph with correct anatom

You mean a child with no clothes? is that CP? there are painting and art of children with no clothers, or you mean you seen sexual acts too? Since I never seen it with adults , AFAIK SD was not trained with porn scenes , at best you might get realistic breasts but not get realistic sexual organs and add on top the low resolution.

>There are user made SD models trained on porn available for months now.

So you would also have an issue even if SD was 100% SFW because some dude in his basement would train it to generate breasts and dicks and then combine it with SD that can generate faces, so SD should not exist ?

People were drawing porn stuff digitally for decades, now an AI will do the same, maybe you need a better case , CP is still illegal, Google and Apple will snitch on you also so WTF is this hysteria ?

In fact tbe cause of this CP and Google stuff I avoided experimenting with Google colab SD, the AI might paint a monstrosity but Google AI might think is CP and close my accounts.

Also you feailled to respond to my accusation of missing evidence, missing evidence that drawing porn or CP ever caused victims, or more victims then say sending you kid to church.

...I think you've stumbled onto a new a fetish subculture here.

not sure what fetish you mean exactly, but is your answer on topic ?

You can retrain SD without NSFW images, is this enough? I suspect not, because what if Timy in his basement trains SD with the face of X and the naked body of Y and then makes a nude image ?

You know what makes rational/logic sense ? |Follow the money, an open source model like SD makes proprietary ones like OpenAI and googles lose ton of money, like a giant pile of money Californian billionaires will lose , so they use their money to create drama.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com