This type of technological fetishism that holds that technology should be developed for it's own sake and that the well being of society is secondary should be discarded. Technology should be developed to make people's lives better or to expand our understanding, not just because it can be. That's how we end up with the proliferation of harmful technologies of no benefit.
Is it just me finding this notion of someone generating nsfw content to show it to other people without their consent really far fetched?
It's about a hundred times more likely they just want it for themselves.
The internet has billions of terrible images. If someone wants to spam awful porn today, they can just do it. No SD necessary.
The problem is not that people would spam porn. The problem is that stalkers and creeps can & will use this technology to violate people's privacy. Celebrities and influencers complain bitterly in interviews about foot wiki, and try to control what pictures of them are posted to stop people from collecting pictures of their feet. How are they meant to feel about someone being able to push a button and produce a fictional sex tape of theirs? If every photo they post has the potential to be turned into porn, what impact do you imagine that having on people?
Furthermore, how are the people making these AIs meant to feel about that? If they want to limit their technology to not produce these images - we're many to understand that as "child abuse"? If I run a porn site and I take down revenge porn when it's reported to me, am I engaging in abuse?
That doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't be regulated as if they were. At some point, intelligence will be protected, and the implications of creating and training it may be governed in similar ways as humans currently allow.
Just as I see a clear and total delineation between commercial and non-commercial entities, defining non-adult and adult (or 'able to consent' and 'unable to consent') may be litmus tests for whether certain laws will apply under a non-human-centric world view.
Realized problems take precedence over hypotheticals.
It's not just humans we need to protect, is it?
I've seen enough evidence to believe animals have a subjective and individual experience, and I believe most or all of them are intelligent, sure. That doesn't seem like what you meant though, I don't see any evidence that AI has a subjective experience, and I don't understand the relevance to the topic at hand, so I'm not sure if I'm engaging with this thought experiment correctly.
> Do you believe that all humans possess the same intelligence?
I don't believe relative intelligence is a measurable quantity, or even coherent as a concept (it evaporates if you really start to scrutinize it), so my answer to this question is undefined.
> It's not just humans we need to protect, is it?
Until such a time as AI have a subjective experience, it is not possible to harm them, morally speaking. Any more than it would be possible to harm a toaster - you could damage a toaster in the physical sense, but a toaster cannot suffer. If we are weighing harms against humans and AI as it exists today, we should come down on the side of humans every time.
Which isn't to say that intelligence is a bar you have to pass to deserve protection, for instance I support protecting rivers and even granting them water rights but I don't claim that rivers are intelligent. But the claim I was responding to was specifically that building limitations into an AI was harmful to the AI and analogous to child abuse.
That's your prerogative when you create something. And while I agree with filtering out porn, you can take solice that people will bypass it.