Hacker News Reader

Comment by andirk | Hacker News Reader

I assume in this case, you are saying "the model" to mean the human Only Fans account holder and not an ML model in which the fake models are trained on? Something funny about clarifying that too.

View on HN

>are saying "the model" to mean the human Only Fans account holder and not an ML model in which the fake models are trained on?

I get the feeling that it won't be long before the "model" will also be the "model".

I've been getting "ai girlfriend" ads on YouTube last week, and yeah I guess we're there.

And I'm sure the "models" will be the ones outraged about AI when they are the ones impacted. I won't shed any tears for them.

Yes, “the model” here appears to refer to the person who owns the OnlyFans channel.

As I contemplate using AI tools to generate images to start an OnlyFans, I see the irony where first they outsourced to Chatters, then replaced the chatters with AI and next we will replace their hotness with AI models. I'm sure this is already happening.

If AI could have a bank account then bots could subscribe to bots and talk with other bots that aren't the bot they're subscribed to

and summarize it for humans.

Maybe they can't have real bank accounts (well, not without fraudulent IDs), but nothing stops them from having cryptocoin wallets.

incredible cyberpunk concept

Yeah, there are already “influencers” which are AI improved clones of existing influencers (without the original model’s consent). So in addition to looking perfect, curating their perfect existence, pleasing sponsors, keeping the attention of the masses, scaling up their ability to respond in a timely way to fans, content creators now need to police their IP from being stolen by other “creators” (and not just the fans).

Chatters-for-hire were always questionable. Some are cheap labor in cheap English-speaking countries. But I’ve also seen that vendors that offer chatter services have difficulty with quality control (of the chats), causing the OnlyFans channel to drop the chatters and apologize for the breach of trust to paying fans.

That said, I imagine there is a LOT of value in identifying high quality leads/chats to be prioritized and ignoring/ blocking the lowest quality (eg. Insurers and time wasters).

> So in addition to looking perfect, curating their perfect existence, pleasing sponsors, keeping the attention of the masses, scaling up their ability to respond in a timely way to fans, content creators now need to police their IP from being stolen by other “creators” (and not just the fans).

How sad.

"Influencers" living on borrowed time is one of the few good things about the machine learning dystopia.

Legally speaking, a channel or account is not property that can be owned.

I feel like we've all spent way too much time in front of the screen in an AI echo chamber if we have to clarify this. Humans performing for the camera have been known as models long before an AI model has ever been dreamed up. Now that the word is being used with both meanings in the same article, the smart "nerds" are the ones having problems deciphering the use?

Humans selling their bodies for profit have historically been known as prostitutes. "Model" is already term intended to mislead about what the job is. Also not a term the average person would use.

Is there a difference anymore?

Good point, it’s already practically impossible to distinguish between ChatGPT o1 output and say the median substack essay. At least for someone who only has a few minutes to spare for second guessing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com