Agree, I think it fundamentally stems from the old conservative view that porn = bad. Morally policing such models is questionable.
Until we can train incrementally and distribute the workload scalably, it doesn't matter how open the models / methods for training are if you still need a bajilllion A100 hours to train the damn things.
Another use case would be that retired porn actors could license their porn persona (face/body) to some AI porn company to make new porn.
I see big business opportunity in the generative AI porn.
Both sides view censorship as a moral prerogative to enforce their world view.
Some conservatives want to ban depictions of sex.
Some conservatives want to ban LGBT depictions.
Some women's rights folks want to ban depictions sex. (Some view it as empowerment, some view it as exploitation.)
Some liberals want to ban non-diverse, dangerous representation.
Some liberals want to ban conservative views against their thoughts.
Some liberals want to ban religion.
...
It's team sports with different flavors on each side.
The best policy, IMO, is to avoid centralized censorship and allow for individuals to control their own algorithmic boosting / deboosting.
I mean, a lot of moderates would like to avoid seeing any extreme content, regardless of whether it is too much left, right, or just in a non-political uncanny valley.
While the Horseshoe Theory has some merits (e.g., both left and right extremes may favor justified coercion, have the we-vs-them mentality, etc), it is grossly oversimplified. Still, a very simple (yet two-dimensional) model of Political Compass is much better.
The fun quirk is that there are similarities, and this model draws comparison front and center.
There are multiple useful models for evaluating politics, though.
It says on the wikipedia article itself 'The horseshoe theory does not enjoy wide support within academic circles; peer-reviewed research by political scientists on the subject is scarce, and existing studies and comprehensive reviews have often contradicted its central premises, or found only limited support for the theory under certain conditions.'
Look at the rules to win an Oscar now.
To cite a direct and personal case, I was involved in writing code for one of the US government's COVID bailout programs, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund. Billions of dollars of relief, but targeted to non-white, non-male restaurant owners. There was a lawsuit after the fact to stop the unfair filtering, but it was too late and the funds were completely dispensed. That felt really gross (though many of my colleagues cheered and even jeered at the complainers).
> I think it's impossible to ban 'conservative thoughts' because that's such a poorly defined phrase.
I commented in /r/conservative (which I was banned from) a few times, and I was summarily banned from five or six other subreddits by some heinous automation. Guilt by association. Except it wasn't even -- I was adding commentary in /r/conservative to ask folks to sympathize more with trans folks. Both sides here ideologically ban with impunity and can be intolerant of ideas they don't like.
I got banned from my city's subreddit for posting a concern about crime. Or maybe they used these same automated, high-blast radius tools. I'm effectively cut out of communication with like-minded people in my city. I think that's pretty fucked.
Mastodon instances are set up to ban on ideology...
This is all wrong and a horrible direction to go in.
It doesn't matter what your views are, I think we all need to be more tolerant and empathetic of others. Even those we disagree with.
Both sides need to get a grip, start meeting in the middle, and generally let each be to their own.
Platforms weighing in on this makes it even worse and more polarizing.
We shouldn't be so different and disagreeable. We have more in common with one another than not.
The points of polarization on each end rhyme with one another.