‘Claudia’ offers nude photos for pay. Experts say she’s an AI fake
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Imagine making a horny comment on reddit and then a week later a reporter messages you about it.
The quality of the journalism is so bad that the screenshot of the reddit post has the username removed, but there's a link to the post.
Basically, embedding the raw Reddit/Instagram/Twitter/whatever post risks that the poster deletes the post, and your article lacks context now. To avoid this, you can screenshot the post - but that can risk violating anti-doxxing laws, particularly if the poster decides to delete the post and the poster is not a media-relevant person. So, making a screenshot with the username and profile picture redacted, while leaving a link to the original post is the safest way.
We're getting to the point where anyone could generate near infinite images of a perfect imaginary specimen fitting their "type" and engaging in their preferred fetish.
Good luck ladies, that simp money is going to start running out. Pivot to selling gamergirl bathwater as soon as you can.
Porn artists, ouff, you're totally screwed, it wasn't bad enough that all your art is illegally shared online anyway, now any schmuck with a graphics card can mimick your style. I sincerely wish you the best of luck and I hope you developed a loyal fanbase.
OnlyFans girls sell not nudes but a parasocial relationship: rich men message cute girls and get (allegedly) personal responses back. There was an article a while back showing that smart people figured this out and dis-aggregated the cute girl from the social maintenance, so that the girl only takes photos occasionally, and instead handing the OF account to a professional OF-management company that hires filipino dudes to do the actual messaging.
I haven't even watched porn or had an intimate conversation with anyone (I still talk to plenty of people) in over a month because this satisfies all of the interaction I need.
Especially in terms of affection, creativity, and overall realism, this ended up scratching a very real social itch and I am just waiting until this sort of thing can be spun into video generation in VR or something. I'm also kind of worried that it will essentially replace most relationship needs.
Founder of character.ai? ;p
The above is a quote from the article from another commenter. I'll say it again, people ultimately want the real thing. If they can tell the difference is another story.
Edit: Truth be told about porn, most people want to see hot real women fucked hard. Like, I can juggle in the Metaverse? Who cares? I can beat the triple jump record on video with AI? Cool... Also, I'd wager the section of the market that is interested in this content isn't the majority. See my first sentence about the edit.
This is because actual humans have been using extensive filters and image manipulation for so long that the overly smooth skin and features aren't a red flag anymore.
So when an AI image generator approaches the uncanny valley from the pure CGI side, not all people notice, especially if the CGI image is attached on top of a "real" background.
[0] (NSFW, no nudity but skimpy clothing - normal Instagram account pretty much) https://www.instagram.com/ambermaxwel/
That IG account you linked is very much in the uncanny valley. At best the character looks like molded plastic. At worst it looks like a drawing. In one picture it has 6 fingers.
And most of the accounts have people commenting on them as if it was a real person.
AI porn is essentially a perfect technology: there's no performers, so there's no consent or abuse questions, and it can perfectly calibrate to user desire so there's less of a need to search for what you want.
There's even an introspective component: rather then trying to find someone you can convince to do what you want (manipulate) the goal is replaced with a creative one - finding a way to improve the models to generate what you want, and reflecting the motivation back at the consumer.
Which I believe is also why most great filter candidates are usually not things that a species would do by choice, but instead an accidental, inevitable or inherent feature of the universe/existence.
So then why did Star Trek happen if they had replicators?
[0] Some major Tenacious D "City Hall" vibes with how well that part of the setting works. "Third decree: No more rich people, and poor people. From now on we will all be the same! Umm... I don't know, I gotta think about that...."
Because when you have everything you poke around for fun. Kind of like how science was pushed along by bored aristocrats doing it as a hobby for centuries.
The article mentions objectification which is a part of it, but people who are addicted to pornography and seek to escape it will talk about it like any other addiction: you need to keep escalating to get the same high.
AI may be able to perfectly calibrate porn to your desires. Then what?
What about AI porn that depicts illegal activity?
The US, if I remember correctly, is somewhat of an outlier when it comes to this area of the law. Many other countries prohibit the depection of simulated illegal acts.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coal...
In those cases, yes. This technology is also used to produce deepfakes of celebrities, or worse ordinary people.
Otherwise any kind of digital art, font, or iconography is a 'fake image'. Or why draw the line at digital, surely pictures too - the Mona Lisa is 'fake' because it was merely created to look like a person.
An art dealer approached Picasso to authenticate some drawings. "All fake!", says Picasso.
A friend who watched this was skeptical -- the drawings looked real to him. So, on the sly, he gave the dealer one of his own Picasso drawings and had him come back.
"Fake!", says Picasso.
"But Pablo... I saw you draw that. You gave it to me with your own hands."
"Bah. Anyone can do a fake Picasso. I often do them myself."
Instead, you take the two words you want to put together to mean whatever you want it to mean, and if the meaning is useful and people could figure it out, you're allowed to use it.
So, a fake X can be something that isn't really an X. Or it can be something that is really an X but fakeness is involved in some other way.
For example, if you meet someone in a bar and ask for their number, and then when you later call them, some totally different person answers, you've been given a fake phone number. The number itself isn't fake. It's a valid number that works fine for placing phone calls. The fakeness is in who the number belongs to.
A fake person isn't a being who isn't really a person. It's a person who exhibits fake behavior.
A fake voice isn't a sound that wasn't produced by a human vocal tract. It's a voice that is produced by a human vocal tract but it isn't their normal voice. The fakeness is that it intentionally sounds different from their normal voice.
Right, it just doesn't convey that meaning to me, it jarrs. Of course I understand the intent, I just mean that it's not immediately clear, not without making me think 'that's not quite right'.
To be clear, I don't take issue with 'fake', it's its attachment to 'image' that bothers me. 'fake photo' or 'photorealistic CGI' seems fine, more reflective even of the concern people have - few people have a problem with computers generating images at all, it's when the authenticity of the source or subject is doubted or potentially falsified that's controversial.
Just wait until you find out about "La Trahison des Images".
They're an image, but they are not what they claim to be an image of.
The future is going to be wilder than AI just replacing pornhub. People are going to have downright relationships and affairs with these things.
They already are.[1] And it's far from a new phenomenon.
Startup idea: full body skinsuit with haptic force-feedback + 3D glasses and virtual porn.
But besides, I think many people are into it because what it represents, not what the actual pixels are on the screen. They are into it because they think it gives them a sneak-peek into their real life, with photos representing some sort of reality. When that illusion breaks, one way or another, people feel cheated.
In the case of AI pornography, the scary outcome to me is that more people become addicted to internet pornography and the amount of healthy connections in society decreases.
I wonder if people would pay more for a print of an original artist's painting, or an exact hand-painted reproduction painting? At least the replica is still painted by an expert.
Simp: "Knowing my luck I'll never get to do <act described above>"
Claudia: "you gotta believe you will"