Hacker News Reader

Comment by posnet | Hacker News Reader

I assume the anti-porn crowd will still dislike this on the principle that porn is inherently bad, even though one of their main arguments is how the porn industry exploits the performers.

And presumably the sex work positive crowd will dislike this because it is taking jobs away from real women.

View on HN

... Somehow this misses the actual most important issue - people's likeness being used in pornography without their consent.

I don’t think there’s much to discuss in this case? The question must assume that people in the generated porn are also 100% no doubt fake

The real money is probably in services that let you upload any photo of a person and delivers custom made porn with that person in it.

This already exists: there are multiple services out there that take a SFW portrait and turn it into a full body nude.

So...

I fully understand porn, but I don't understand that. What is the point of having porn with the specific face of a non porn actor/actress? Is this a fetish I don't get? Artificial revenge porn? Having fun putting the face of $(your least favorite personality) on top of a lascivious body?

It sounds like you are overthinking this...

Story of my life :)

Imagine your favourite porn scene, but with you as one of the actors and that cute neighbour as the actor. Face and body.

Well, I guess it's just not a kink of mine.

Fetishes have gone crazy lately. Feet, BDSM, scat- some people are even into the idea of having sex with attractive people they know

Not sure what you mean. Maybe it's just my biases, but I don't think most people would be against fake OnlyFans performers or AI porn with 100% fake personas. But generating porn of real people without their consent, let alone of children... Yikes, it gets problematic fast.

Wait, are they talking about porn of real people (much less children)? My assumption was they were talking about 100% AI generated people where any similarity to real people was purely coincidental.

The article even says "Now, certain corners of the internet are inundated with these explicit images of women who don’t exist".

It is mostly celebs/influencers who are deepfaked into porn. That's where the money is. But it has also happened at schools where someone does it another student/teacher and passes it around.

I don't know if it is true that "that's where the money is" (some of the people quoted in the article are making a whole lot more money that I do at my six-figure tech job). But deepfakes of celebs or students is not what the article is about.

> 100% no doubt fake

A substantial part of the model-sharing site Civitai's available content is models or LoRAs based entirely on specific people (protected by personality rights, depending on jurisdiction) or characters (usually protected by copyright and often by trademark).

For a more-or-less work-safe example, here's one made to specifically reproduce Christian Bale's appearance as Patrick Bateman: https://civitai.com/models/8476

But that's exactly my point - it's reasonable to expect Christian Bale to 1. agree to this, 2. expect compensation if he does, 3. take legal action if he doesn't agree but someone does it anyway, 4. have people who make these face criminal charges if he gets deepfaked into some kind of child porn. You have to be a hardcore libertarian to argue for less regulation around this.

I can also understand parents of teenagers argue for more regulation - we've got enough teen suicides as is and I don't see how this tech helps with that. I can see plenty of ways it makes it worse.

But all of the above is just not a thing if the generated person doesn't exist and is hardly similar to anyone alive.

Probably reverse will happen where look-alike people will cosplay those generated porns. So we can't really say it will be 100% fake.

Not that I support people's likeness being used without their consent, but how is banning something related to AI going to resolve this problem?

I can draw an illustration right now that uses someone's likeness without their consent that they may not like so much - who is stopping me? So why are we trying to stop AI?

Seems like an issue to address on another layer/level. Or a veiled attempt to control something for other reasons under convenient cover.

> who is stopping me?

Their lawyer, if your depiction is covered by personality rights and the situation is significant enough to pursue damages. This is pretty much never going to be the case with an individual drawing (especially if only available non-commercially), but there are plenty of examples of people winning or settling for substantial sums after, for example, their likeness was used to advertise something without their consent.

> So why are we trying to stop AI?

Because a bunch of companies are trying to launder various legal liabilities (copyright, personality rights, etc) through the claim of 'it was just training data'.

Seems to me the focus is too much on the tool. You don't blame adobe for people photoshopping a celebs head on a naked body.

> Sam’s models and photos are fictional, but to make the accounts more believable, he buys videos of real-life adult creators and then deepfakes in his AI models’ heads. He says his partner sources the videos from contacts in the adult industry, who know that their faces will be cut from the footage, but doesn’t specify whether they know exactly what the videos are being used for.

The "real women" are still working, it just doesn't look like them at the point of sale.

Talent being exploited is an industry agnostic concept.

The core argument should be how it messes up your dopamine system real good, addicts don't even realise it. AI isn't fixing that one anytime soon.

What do you think? And have you found anyone expressing opinions like what you assume?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com