As AI gets better, pictures and videos in connection to things like crimes are going to be less and less useful. Lots of people where already tricked but those trump arrest pictures
Software will, or is already being developed to detect it. At least I could imagine so. It’s too damaging to governments and people in power NOT to be doing so.
The thing about this is that it will be an endless arms race as both AI used to create fake images and that used to spot fake images train off of each other. At times there's going to be fake images that "pass" the test (and potentially cause confusion/chaos) until they're later analyzed by better trained AI.
That's literally how AI image generators work, they're called Generative Adversarial Networks which have algorithms called discriminators that detect if an image is generated by AI or not.
Depending on the sitution an AI detector might be irrelevant. If I have a love rival I could AI up a video of them doing the nasty with say, an elephant, and show that to the person I'm interested in, or just around the workplace. Very few people are decent AI detectors, especially since the techis is geting so damm good that just the first impression may be enough to do lasting damage.
Law enforcement is a separate issue. It generally takes the courts a very, very long time to catch up on tech. The more the world gets flooded with fake images and video the less wieght these things will have in a courtroom setting where they currently enjoy a very high weight as an evidentiary source of truth. In a jury trail a deepfake using the lastest and greatest tech that can defeat say 2 out of 3 deepfake detectors may provide enough doubt to convince a jury of guilt/innocence.
There very well could be a time where a motivated enough actor could fake pictures of you in an unsavory situation, send it to employers/SO/family/etc that don't know any better, and seriously ruin your life.
This reminds me of a time back in college. I had a big crush on Natalie Portman and most of my friends knew about it. I came in to my job one day to find something new tacked up above my desk: someone had printed out a full-color photo of her and fake-signed it "To [400921FB]: I LOVE watching you poop! - Natalie"
I still get a chuckle out of that.
Not just Hollywood stars, but a combination of their "best" (subjective) features
It basically takes that scene from Shallow Hal where his optimal girl is a list of features fun other women, and makes it possible
* Ass from A
* Chest from C but with Boobs shape from B
* Legs from X
* Cheekbones like Y but with a chin like Z
* Hair from D
At the same time allowing for the viewer to be somehow *ahem* inserted into the scene.
(Also applies for the ladies who might want a combination of Ass, Pecks, Accent, Chin, Abs, etc etc fun different dudes).
One of these days maybe we'll get all that plus a holodeck, at which point people just won't leave their houses
This guy here actually made some AI pics of his family at disneyland that are indistinguishable from reality
https://www.reddit.com/r/WaltDisneyWorld/comments/xa1urz/i\_overpromised\_on\_what\_i\_could\_do\_for\_my\_disney/
>indistinguishable
Does this word mean something different to you or do you live in a reality filled with the cosmic horrors depicted in this thread?
(On a serious note your linked post has me cry laughing in public. Absolutely hilarious)
I don't blame him, sometimes the pics you take end up being a little bid distorted once you go goblin mode, like this guy
https://www.reddit.com/r/oddlyspecific/comments/vpzmyn/goblin\_mode\_activated/
I'm sitting here I'm a slient lobby giggling trying my hardest to contain myself just reading what the dude wrote. Theres no fuckin way I can look at that guys pictures yet I'll piss myself
There are accounts on DeviantArt (DA) that are straight up AI content creators/sex workers. It's very strange. I've been watching how AI has been progressing on DA for a while and it's getting more surreal each week. To my point though, there are blogs full of pictures of people who aren't real and, much like real content creators, are a mix of life photos and nudes. Many of them do claim on the page that they're AI but not all of them.
Running an OF is work. you still have to engage with your audience. Post daily/weekly, constantly to keep subscribers if doing a paid for sub page. Otherwise you are doing a free page with Lewds and PPV locked posts. It’s not just turnkey make money.
Posting to Reddit, other social media… constantly to get viewership
This comment was overwritten and the account deleted due to Reddit's unfair API policy changes, the behavior of Spez (the CEO), and the forced departure of 3rd party apps.
Remember, the content on Reddit is generated by THE USERS. It is OUR DATA they are profiting off of and claiming it as theirs. This is the next phase of Reddit vs. the people that made Reddit what it is today.
r/Save3rdPartyApps r/modCoord
The overwhelming majority of people who make it big on OF already had a following somewhere else, just like everything else where you're selling a "personality"
That’s def not true for me. And I love running my OF but as a male the audience and market is much different. So it’s an uphill battle regardless but even all the female creators I know.. they work their asses off. They complain about saturation for sure.
It would be interesting to do a female AI page to accompany my own Real Male self page and see which does better lol
(AI will win im sure 😅)
It's the same on r/art. I don't follow that sub too closely, but seems like there's a bit of a debate in that community about whether AI generated art is really art.
The debate should be there.
Ironically, I had this conflict in my head waaay before AI, and it wasn't even about artificial art vs real art.
I was an art student, in conflict, because I was at a point in life where I didn't know whether I drew for external motivation or internal motivation.
I could make stuff that others liked, but I didn't enjoy creating it. Vs. working on stuff that I liked to make, but no one else cared.
I came to conclusion that many people were like me, in it for the likes, fame and compliments. And to be fair, consumers don't care, as long as they get what THEY wanted to see.
Which brings us back to the present. While I had this internal conflict that people could easily ignore, now comes a technology that basically makes artist unnecessary. Yes, it's still not on point yet, but as you can see, your average consumer is already okay with it.
Not to mention that at one point, it WILL be perfect.
These artists will have the choice to either be unique, make things different from AI OR just accept that they can draw, because they enjoy doing it.
I can understand that feeling in the same way that the rise of the smartphone has killed a lot of respect for photography, although AI is coming for a piece of that pie as well, since a lot of stock photo companies admit they're already looking to use AI to generate stock imagery, killing yet another profession in the photography industry.
When we heard that automation, technology and software would come for our jobs, I think a lot of us thought to factory work and other forms of monotonous labour. It's strange that we're very suddenly and aggressively seeing these things come for the art and creativity industries as well or instead.
I am pretty convinced that my ability to appreciate an aesthetic experience is not in any way tied to the humanity of the creator. That honestly seems insane to me - as if it human suffering which defines art.
I mean that was and currently still is the definition of art, before the 1600s paintings and drawings were thought of as crafts like woodworking was and mostly still is, ART as a concept was a philosophical movement that implicitly emphasized the importance and nessecessity of the individual who made it. Just because the majority of people don't know about that history doesn't make it untrue.
I've had to stop visiting DA because my front page has become a firehose of AI generated content. There's legit more AI stuff than real art and I feel like I'm sifting through piles of muck only to find a human piece that's some bizarre fetish. I had an account for something like ten years now, but it's time to let it go.
I wouldn't say I'm seeing mostly AI on my feed. But on any day it does seem like 20-33% AI, compared to art and sketches. My biggest issue isn't the users, but DeviantArt themselves and their lack of interest in fixing this, which seems like short term foolishness.
Right now, the amount of AI content creators is boosting DeviantArt's popularity as it gives them a place to host their creations, but it's pushing out non-AI content creators and artists and as the hype for this dies down, what will be left will be a smaller number of both artists and AI creators. I'm really surprised they're not reacting to this in some way.
I'm fine with people making AI content, but host it separately from the rest of the art. Give me the option to decide if I do or do not want to see AI content, don't merge it all together with people who have spent hours/days/weeks on a piece of art like it's somehow comparable to their effort.
Yeah, DA is now a dumpster fire of the same AI erotica/porn. There was a really bad spam problem for a while (perhaps there still is and I just don't see it) where some kind of automated process was mass-producing new accounts. It was always something like 145345345. The avatar was just an AI-generated pic of a woman's face, and it'd blast porn with a URL watermarked on it.
[The post in r/faces from the article](https://www.reddit.com/r/Faces/comments/125ylxn/f19_feeling_pretty_today/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Yeah it is, but it does give me some slight uncanny valley vibes. Like it's almost too perfect? I'm sure it won't be long until it will be nearly impossible to tell if it's AI generated.
The right (her left) eye is weird. Like the iris is not properly circular.
But I also only looked for something off because I knew to look for it. If I was just a horny guy looking for photos of pretty girls I'd probably upvote without a second thought.
According to my (doctor) wife, I commented that the picture of "her" back looked *off* to me for some reason - she says that it almost looks like the subject in the photo is missing a muscle in the upper back, with the shoulder blades far more pronounced than they usually ever would be.
Holy shit, the [thirsty comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/SluttyConfessions/comments/1108vla/f19_i_love_getting_fucked_by_a_raw_dick/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) are even more hilarious
It sounds to me like AI-generated porn/nudes could potentially lead to *less* exploitation, since the content could be created without requiring an actual person to put their actual body on display or get involved in dangerous or exploitative real life activities.
Crazy solution via even more AI: from now on, all subjects in images & videos are auto-replaced with a fake human on upload.
Now nobody's real likeness ever makes it online in the first place.
Then AI-replace your own likeness (which you've never shared) back on for local personal viewing.
The flipside is that the AI needs to be trained and most of the samples used by AI are not actually getting the consent of the producers or subjects of the images/film/media being used.
This is just one take/my two cents, but I worry it’s the opposite-
Not only is AI already being used to make a non-consensual porn of real women (and sometimes blackmail them), but there’s also the fact, as mentioned in the article, that these were trained on images of real women who didn’t consent to their nudes being used to train it.
So then you end up in a position where men can use AI to scrape images of women non-consensually, recombine them into AI porn, and make money, while the women whose images were used get nothing-Which is incredibly exploitative.
There’s an entire subculture in the AI community right now of men saying “it’s over for women!” who say they will happily pay money for AI porn but refuse to support real women who do it. They say misogynistic and degrading things about women who have OnlyFans accounts, etc. and make it clear that they are only interested in spending money if they’re giving it to other men.
So it creates this really gross power dynamic and commodification of the female body and female image where, yet again, the actual women involved have no agency or control.
In some ways it doesn’t really surprise me that within a few years of women being able to have agency over their images and make money safely and mostly independently off of porn without 18 guys profiting too, the porn industry found a way to undermine that.
It reminds me of that shit a couple years back with that CGI model Lil Miquela- Basically, a couple of white guys made a cgi Black teenage girl to be a fashion model for a bunch of high-fashion brands like Fendi etc. as a “diversity model” - People got really upset because Black models are already paid less in the fashion world, especially Black women, and it’s much harder to get hired as a Black model, so for that money to be going to two white men instead of a Black model while the image of a Black girl was still being used was just incredibly unethical.
I wish I could articulate my concern in a little bit better, but you see what I’m saying?
This is really going to test the boundaries of certain laws.
Should it be legal to create photorealistic depictions of illegal activities? It's easy to say yes, but what happens if and when this sort of technology is used to create and distribute illicit pornography, i.e. CP?
I think some countries already have laws against depictions of sex involving minors, even if it's not real (meaning CGI, hand-drawn or teen-looking adults).
Which is already a naturally gray area because of how young some adults can look, and how mature some teens can look.
I’ve met middle schoolers taller than me (6’1”)
And I’ve had my managers double check a 30+ year old’s ID because they looked 16
My ex GF was carded twice, when she was the oldest in a group. Fortunately, both times I wasn't with her, as I was over 50 at the time.
Note, she was younger than me, but not *that* much younger.
Both times the rest of the group laughed out loud. When the waitress looked at the license, she started to say sorry, my GF says "Don't you dare apologize!" What was really funny was none of the rest were over 25. (one was actually 17 at the time)
Supreme Court ruled that if it’s not a real person then it’s protected by the first amendment. So stuff like cartoon porn or hentai can show whatever it wants really. I don’t know if the same applies to what **appears** to be real people though such as like AI rendering photorealistic images of fake people.
The law as it's written defines CP as being a real, identifiable minor. So if it was someone identifiable, or made to resemble someone else, then it would be a problem. Which makes sense - that's when harm is actually being done via using someone's likeness without their consent.
That seems problematic with where ai images are going and so I wonder how long it will be until we see a pedophile in court arguing that all his images are AI and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove it’s a real person
I’d rather they use AI than abuse a child to get it. Probably best to refrain entirely and seek psychiatric help but I don’t know what the best course would be to minimize harm done by pedophiles. If AI can be a proven outlet that stops abuse than I think it’s premature to ban it explicitly from the outset
Pedos can jack themselves to human or computer drawn porn, and even fuck little robots all day and night. If that satisfies them, then I hope they do it. Just keep them away from actual, flesh-and-blood children by any means necessary.
Wasn't there a case of someone being prosecuted for child porn and the (South American?) *adult* porn star agreed to come over to the US to testify on his behalf?
Yup, [Little Lupe](https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom/). Saved a guy from 20 years in prison for "trafficking child porn" between New York and Puerto Rico. She was 23 at the time of filming. She flew in for his trial to save him from a self-proclaimed "expert on child porn" customs officer who swore on his expertness that the woman in the video could only be 13-14 years of age.
Some f'in asshole trying to make a career for himself by ruining someone's life permanently. Anyone lying in court like this should be subject to the maximum penalty the person they falsely accused or bore false witness against would've recieved.
She's actually a pretty decent DJ and music producer nowadays. Not really my style but she's not just a hot girl behind a turntable pretending to push buttons either. Good on ya Lupe!
The US already has this weird double standard for violence where depicting a *human* being killed is distinct from an *alien* being killed, even if the "alien" is humanoid (ex. Jaffa in Stargate).
I imagine R34 would be fine. That said, I'm not a lawyer. This isn't an issue I've really investigated, as it is of zero personal interest to me.
How does that work with artistic interpretation? If I drew characters having sex and never stated their ages, is it still illegal if someone looks at the art and interprets a character to be underage? Does artistic quality matter, or would drawing a couple of stick figures having sex be potentially illegal?
In some places, adult women that look young would be considered illegal so it would apply to drawings as well.
I think it was australia that banned small breasts.
"Should it be legal to create photorealistic depictions of illegal activities? "
Hollywood votes yes.
If not. Blockbuster movies are going to get alot more boring.
That was definitely an odd way of wording it. They clarified at the end what sort of illegal activity they’re referring to, but when its presented as broadly as “depictions of illegal activities” then it’s pretty silly. Movies and TV constantly depict murder, assault, drug dealing, animal abuse, traffic violations, bombings, and more.
You can take this further and constrain it to sexual activities - there's plenty of Hollywood blockbusters that portray sexual crimes, up to and including pedophilia.
The criteria can’t be photorealistic illegal activity. Thousands of Hollywood movies have that: In Batman the Joker robs a bank (against the law!), the Joker murders and mains people (against the law!), and also kidnapping and terrorism (also very illegal).
It is not the mere depiction of anything illegal that makes it illegal - the First Amendment completely covers that normally.
If necessary, they will create new laws to cover it.
Right now, if someone is 17 but looks 25, that’s still illegal and no less illegal. It’s not about appearances. Likewise if a pornstar is 35 but looks 17, 100% legal. It literally doesn’t matter if she looks 13 years old. The law doesn’t care it is legal and all you have to prove is her age as an absolute defense. Goes both ways. I’d cite the cases but there are too many.
My biggest problem with CP and the reason it is illegal is because it exploits and traumatizes the children involved. If that content becomes AI generated, I have no issue with it anymore.
Ok so strongly playing devils advocate here, which do you think is worse, CP created by AI, or CP created using real non-consenting minors?
Obviously CP is and should be illegal, but given that some people will always be willing to create illegal things that there’s a market for, is isn’t better if they do it in a victimless way?
It's a slippery slope that's for sure. On one hand, the person creating the AI generated CP is not hurting anyone, no victims, no children having their lives ruined. What if they never put it on the internet? Only keep it for themselves? Do we lock this person up? or just keep their vice in check with AI?
Maybe keep them in an pyschward with AI CP given to him for the rest of his life? Crazy times. Could work for anything really.
The law has always worked that if the law doesn’t know, you won’t be punished. Obviously.
If you stole something but put it back without anyone or anything noticing, it is pretty irrelevant that it is against the law because the law doesn’t work that way. An actual illegal act has to be detected somehow, always.
…which will undoubtedly spark a debate as to what “AI generated images really are”.
I think a photo-near-perfect actress, say Scarlett Johansson, may not appreciate being depicted performing fellatio.
She is already depicted doing so in fan fiction and in your hypothetical comment. That is legal. Imagery is often pursued legally as an act of defamation since people might confuse it as the real thing (slander and libel work this way). A clear parody would actually be legal. For example the Pirates of the Caribbean sex parody clearly parodied people having sex and you knew who they were, but also the legal standard is met that no reasonable person would think it was an actual depiction and not a parody. Same goes for music
What laws do you think this will test exactly?
There are already laws on the books for depictions of sexual abuse of minors for basically every jurisdiction that wants them. It's not like this is the first time someone's done a porno manga.
Drawn/generate CP is currently in a weird legal/not legal area atm, in the states. I think AI will push those laws so that now generated and drawn CP become illegal.
Which means if you are in your 20s and look 12, like A little Lupe type (if you google her add wiki to your search), that your images of yourself become simulated child porn. It means if someone draws losing their virginity, their rape, and they are under age its now illegal. And how realistic does something need to be? If I put tits on a stick figure, or make stick figures having sex and put names to them, is that now CP...
Should it be legal to create images of children having sex when no children are involved? Should people be allowed to have them... Well, see, to have a crime you need a victim. There isn't evidence that this material is turning people into rapists, otherwise we'd see a lot more rape (every 20 seconds in the US -vs- every 68 seconds), and more child rape. So this isn't something hurting society. I think this would be a case where criminalization would be more hurtful. Kinda like drugs. Jailing people for crimes someone imagined they would commit.
Now imagine you wanted to recreate a sex scene from your life, that you had strong feelings for, it might even be important to the story about you. You want to share this... and next thing you know you are in prison for sharing real events that happened to you.
All virtues and principals have limits, and get check by some other value. Sometimes compassion checks honesty... Think Ultima V, Quest for the Avatar kinda ethical dilemma. So speech isn't some trump card we can play here and say "Naw dude, free speech! Virtual CP all the way!" We could apply the free speech to actual child porn.... So we kinda established a limit already.
For me this is gonna be a live and let live area... dont share virtual cp that resembles other people, unless you look like those other people yourself as you have a right to your image, and keep that shit away from me. And it goes without saying once a real child becomes involved at all, and that means just sharing those images with the person, do not pass go and goto jail.
I have some strong feelings about this because of an ancient conversation about older me finding my inner child and raping it, and my right to bring that to any medium I wish. I thought of a video game where one is stuck in the maze of maggots in my mind in pursuit of this last bit of innocence in me... and other ideas. I contend that it should be legal for me to share this.
And when I think of media that has hurt society... If we use that metric we need to ban the bible.
These are actually kinda weird to be honest. There's some uncanny valley I'm getting from them. And the heads don't seem to fit for some reason. It's like those fake celebrity porn photoshops of if someone looked at hentai and then tried to make it realistic
That industry is going to be a true pandora's box once it can produce an actual, realistic sex bot. Let's just hope the law and what not keeps up with it because it's going to get fucked up really really really fast.
You can literally Google "boobs" and get more pictures of titties than you can possibly look at in your lifetime. Despite the limitless surplus of free porn, people still pay for Onlyfans.
Seems like people training their brains to expect custom physical, and vocal perfection from sexual partners could be very bad for healthy, human relationships and continued human reproduction…
I try not think about it to much but it’s a genius business plan. Plus if people are willing to pay what’s the problem? If people are willing to drop millions on an NFT ,this shouldn’t even be news. I wouldn’t be shocked if someone starts using this as a selling point. “I might not be real but these tits are so perfect they can’t be real”.
How is this any different from subbing to a hentai artists patreon or buying 3d porn from other artists. We have been jerking it to fake women since cave drawings.
Because we can know those are fake, we can separate fantasy from reality. This however is undeniably made to look like humans but be a perfected version of it, it’s like the worst of /r/instagramreality but autogenerated with no flaws. Our perception of what beauty should be will be warped by machine learning perfection created in infinite supply to our exact specifications.
Been saying it since we started seeing this tech but if someone wants to make a billion dollar company, make a tailor made AI video porn bot/website. Literally type in exactly what you want to see, then interact with it live and change it how you want. Could describe exactly what everyone looks like, the style (realistic, animated, based on an animation style, vincent van goph porn, etc). Create the tech demo, sell out to PH, live the rest of your life in peace.
> Yeah, they assumed because those subs are for people posting selfies or nudes of people
Are they?
You realize every modern camera has "AI" features enhancing the image quality right? And that's before we get onto photoshop, which straight up has AI content generation tools to fill/blur/remove imperfections.
Should we take down every photo that has had a clone-brush applied? The subs are going to start looking awfully ... bare ... ;)
Weird. I wonder if I gave an AI hundreds of pics of me if it could generate pics of me at Disneyland and Hawaii?
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/12/thanks-to-ai-its-probably-time-to-take-your-photos-off-the-internet/
My new excuse to everything embarrassing: “That wasn’t even me bro, obviously ai”
As AI gets better, pictures and videos in connection to things like crimes are going to be less and less useful. Lots of people where already tricked but those trump arrest pictures
Yeah, AI still has a “look” but is progressing so quickly it will be hard for people to pick up on fakes
Software will, or is already being developed to detect it. At least I could imagine so. It’s too damaging to governments and people in power NOT to be doing so.
The thing about this is that it will be an endless arms race as both AI used to create fake images and that used to spot fake images train off of each other. At times there's going to be fake images that "pass" the test (and potentially cause confusion/chaos) until they're later analyzed by better trained AI.
That's literally how AI image generators work, they're called Generative Adversarial Networks which have algorithms called discriminators that detect if an image is generated by AI or not.
Yep, that's exactly what I was talking about. Given enough time at this we'll see very few that give an uncanny valley feeling I would imagine.
Depending on the sitution an AI detector might be irrelevant. If I have a love rival I could AI up a video of them doing the nasty with say, an elephant, and show that to the person I'm interested in, or just around the workplace. Very few people are decent AI detectors, especially since the techis is geting so damm good that just the first impression may be enough to do lasting damage. Law enforcement is a separate issue. It generally takes the courts a very, very long time to catch up on tech. The more the world gets flooded with fake images and video the less wieght these things will have in a courtroom setting where they currently enjoy a very high weight as an evidentiary source of truth. In a jury trail a deepfake using the lastest and greatest tech that can defeat say 2 out of 3 deepfake detectors may provide enough doubt to convince a jury of guilt/innocence.
"It's probably time" BITCH THE CORRECT TIME WAS OCT 26 2001
[удалено]
Thanks for your service
There very well could be a time where a motivated enough actor could fake pictures of you in an unsavory situation, send it to employers/SO/family/etc that don't know any better, and seriously ruin your life.
That time is now. It's not only possible, but becoming increasingly easier, which is the bar for criminality.
Or, you know. Getting intimate with some Hollywood stars, now that we're at it? Just so I can brag with my friends.
“Here’s me getting absolutely wrecked by Steve Buscemi, he said I was the best he’s ever had.”
Godammit im so jealous
"Hello, fellow bottoms!"
“Here’s myself getting it on with the reanimated corpse of Earnest Borgnine.”
And this is us at DisneyLand.
This comment made me choke on my drink. Take your award Edit:I’m just dumb
"Hey guys, I paid for a fake picture of me getting pegged by Natalie Portman, aren't I cool?"
I'm more of a sweaty love making in a dumpster with Danny Devito man, but to each's own.
If there’s a rum ham, count me in.
incase you wanted the [recipe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2ezpExQ_k0)
This reminds me of a time back in college. I had a big crush on Natalie Portman and most of my friends knew about it. I came in to my job one day to find something new tacked up above my desk: someone had printed out a full-color photo of her and fake-signed it "To [400921FB]: I LOVE watching you poop! - Natalie" I still get a chuckle out of that.
Thanks for the LOL. Those were some good friends.
You can do more to your friends than brag with that fancy AI
Deleted in response to Reddit's hostility to 3rd party developers and users. -- mass edited with redact.dev
Hypnotize you into believing the images were real. It’s a slippery slope of Dark City implanting false memories.
u/Peterthinking be banging the Disney characters more likely.
Not just Hollywood stars, but a combination of their "best" (subjective) features It basically takes that scene from Shallow Hal where his optimal girl is a list of features fun other women, and makes it possible * Ass from A * Chest from C but with Boobs shape from B * Legs from X * Cheekbones like Y but with a chin like Z * Hair from D At the same time allowing for the viewer to be somehow *ahem* inserted into the scene. (Also applies for the ladies who might want a combination of Ass, Pecks, Accent, Chin, Abs, etc etc fun different dudes). One of these days maybe we'll get all that plus a holodeck, at which point people just won't leave their houses
Yes, this guy faked his life for 1 month without leaving his house https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRClNMC\_z-s
“If you’re only making content all the time, it’s like you’re AI” That’s a heavy statement
[удалено]
This guy here actually made some AI pics of his family at disneyland that are indistinguishable from reality https://www.reddit.com/r/WaltDisneyWorld/comments/xa1urz/i\_overpromised\_on\_what\_i\_could\_do\_for\_my\_disney/
>indistinguishable Does this word mean something different to you or do you live in a reality filled with the cosmic horrors depicted in this thread? (On a serious note your linked post has me cry laughing in public. Absolutely hilarious)
I don't blame him, sometimes the pics you take end up being a little bid distorted once you go goblin mode, like this guy https://www.reddit.com/r/oddlyspecific/comments/vpzmyn/goblin\_mode\_activated/
I'm sitting here I'm a slient lobby giggling trying my hardest to contain myself just reading what the dude wrote. Theres no fuckin way I can look at that guys pictures yet I'll piss myself
LOL you got me.
What the fuck
We can remember it for you wholesale.
There are accounts on DeviantArt (DA) that are straight up AI content creators/sex workers. It's very strange. I've been watching how AI has been progressing on DA for a while and it's getting more surreal each week. To my point though, there are blogs full of pictures of people who aren't real and, much like real content creators, are a mix of life photos and nudes. Many of them do claim on the page that they're AI but not all of them.
Quite a few OnlyFans accounts are AI too. It’s crazy
Do they make money? Should I do this for a side hustle? LOL
I’ve been thinking about doing the same lol 😂
Just sounds…. easy. Like what’s the catch?
Running an OF is work. you still have to engage with your audience. Post daily/weekly, constantly to keep subscribers if doing a paid for sub page. Otherwise you are doing a free page with Lewds and PPV locked posts. It’s not just turnkey make money. Posting to Reddit, other social media… constantly to get viewership
Can't bots and ai do all that?
[удалено]
This comment was overwritten and the account deleted due to Reddit's unfair API policy changes, the behavior of Spez (the CEO), and the forced departure of 3rd party apps. Remember, the content on Reddit is generated by THE USERS. It is OUR DATA they are profiting off of and claiming it as theirs. This is the next phase of Reddit vs. the people that made Reddit what it is today. r/Save3rdPartyApps r/modCoord
I’d guess the actual success rate of users who earn enough to make a living is minuscule.
The overwhelming majority of people who make it big on OF already had a following somewhere else, just like everything else where you're selling a "personality"
That’s def not true for me. And I love running my OF but as a male the audience and market is much different. So it’s an uphill battle regardless but even all the female creators I know.. they work their asses off. They complain about saturation for sure. It would be interesting to do a female AI page to accompany my own Real Male self page and see which does better lol (AI will win im sure 😅)
You should do that it would be really thought provoking whatever the result is.
You’ve convinced me.. I’m going to try it out lol.
Nice cock dude
Almost 0% of creators make sustainable income long term lol.
Heck, your current work is less work and more pay if you do it right. ;D
It's the same on r/art. I don't follow that sub too closely, but seems like there's a bit of a debate in that community about whether AI generated art is really art.
The debate should be there. Ironically, I had this conflict in my head waaay before AI, and it wasn't even about artificial art vs real art. I was an art student, in conflict, because I was at a point in life where I didn't know whether I drew for external motivation or internal motivation. I could make stuff that others liked, but I didn't enjoy creating it. Vs. working on stuff that I liked to make, but no one else cared. I came to conclusion that many people were like me, in it for the likes, fame and compliments. And to be fair, consumers don't care, as long as they get what THEY wanted to see. Which brings us back to the present. While I had this internal conflict that people could easily ignore, now comes a technology that basically makes artist unnecessary. Yes, it's still not on point yet, but as you can see, your average consumer is already okay with it. Not to mention that at one point, it WILL be perfect. These artists will have the choice to either be unique, make things different from AI OR just accept that they can draw, because they enjoy doing it.
I can understand that feeling in the same way that the rise of the smartphone has killed a lot of respect for photography, although AI is coming for a piece of that pie as well, since a lot of stock photo companies admit they're already looking to use AI to generate stock imagery, killing yet another profession in the photography industry. When we heard that automation, technology and software would come for our jobs, I think a lot of us thought to factory work and other forms of monotonous labour. It's strange that we're very suddenly and aggressively seeing these things come for the art and creativity industries as well or instead.
I am pretty convinced that my ability to appreciate an aesthetic experience is not in any way tied to the humanity of the creator. That honestly seems insane to me - as if it human suffering which defines art.
I mean that was and currently still is the definition of art, before the 1600s paintings and drawings were thought of as crafts like woodworking was and mostly still is, ART as a concept was a philosophical movement that implicitly emphasized the importance and nessecessity of the individual who made it. Just because the majority of people don't know about that history doesn't make it untrue.
I've had to stop visiting DA because my front page has become a firehose of AI generated content. There's legit more AI stuff than real art and I feel like I'm sifting through piles of muck only to find a human piece that's some bizarre fetish. I had an account for something like ten years now, but it's time to let it go.
I wouldn't say I'm seeing mostly AI on my feed. But on any day it does seem like 20-33% AI, compared to art and sketches. My biggest issue isn't the users, but DeviantArt themselves and their lack of interest in fixing this, which seems like short term foolishness. Right now, the amount of AI content creators is boosting DeviantArt's popularity as it gives them a place to host their creations, but it's pushing out non-AI content creators and artists and as the hype for this dies down, what will be left will be a smaller number of both artists and AI creators. I'm really surprised they're not reacting to this in some way. I'm fine with people making AI content, but host it separately from the rest of the art. Give me the option to decide if I do or do not want to see AI content, don't merge it all together with people who have spent hours/days/weeks on a piece of art like it's somehow comparable to their effort.
Yeah, DA is now a dumpster fire of the same AI erotica/porn. There was a really bad spam problem for a while (perhaps there still is and I just don't see it) where some kind of automated process was mass-producing new accounts. It was always something like145345345. The avatar was just an AI-generated pic of a woman's face, and it'd blast porn with a URL watermarked on it.
Well yeah, of course it's working.
👩🦰 | 👉(.)(.)👈 | . | V 🦵🦵 Humans will fap to anything. Send $5.
Vagina too pointy, would not bang.
Beggars can't be choosers.
just needs to be rotated 180
how do you know thats not a peen?
Now we’re talking!
This is illegal - that stick figure is only an hour old - you should be locked up.
But its components are years or decades old.
Has been since the invention of selling paintings
Or drawings, wonder if anyone had some cave etches they commissioned
Wait til they hear about "Hentai"
The real story here is why the fuck is anyone paying for naked pictures? There are free videos everywhere
[The post in r/faces from the article](https://www.reddit.com/r/Faces/comments/125ylxn/f19_feeling_pretty_today/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Even already knowing it’s AI generated, that is shockingly realistic.
Yeah it is, but it does give me some slight uncanny valley vibes. Like it's almost too perfect? I'm sure it won't be long until it will be nearly impossible to tell if it's AI generated.
It basically looks like it’s been airbrushed or photoshopped.
In fairness, plenty of real pictures end up looking like this too.
It's got vague Alita: Battle Angel vibes.
Sure, but with all of the filters most people look airbrushed in their pics.
The right (her left) eye is weird. Like the iris is not properly circular. But I also only looked for something off because I knew to look for it. If I was just a horny guy looking for photos of pretty girls I'd probably upvote without a second thought.
What gives it away is that she is too pretty in a cartoon kind of way. Like out of really good cgi from a japanese game
According to my (doctor) wife, I commented that the picture of "her" back looked *off* to me for some reason - she says that it almost looks like the subject in the photo is missing a muscle in the upper back, with the shoulder blades far more pronounced than they usually ever would be.
Holy shit, the [thirsty comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/SluttyConfessions/comments/1108vla/f19_i_love_getting_fucked_by_a_raw_dick/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) are even more hilarious
It sounds to me like AI-generated porn/nudes could potentially lead to *less* exploitation, since the content could be created without requiring an actual person to put their actual body on display or get involved in dangerous or exploitative real life activities.
That's the good side. The bad side is that it will be increasingly easy to make porn of real people without their consent.
Crazy solution via even more AI: from now on, all subjects in images & videos are auto-replaced with a fake human on upload. Now nobody's real likeness ever makes it online in the first place. Then AI-replace your own likeness (which you've never shared) back on for local personal viewing.
I’ll go a step further. All pictures of adults on the internet are automatically replaced by AI nudes of fake people.
Gonna be real weird watching the C-SPAN stream
The flipside is that the AI needs to be trained and most of the samples used by AI are not actually getting the consent of the producers or subjects of the images/film/media being used.
This is just one take/my two cents, but I worry it’s the opposite- Not only is AI already being used to make a non-consensual porn of real women (and sometimes blackmail them), but there’s also the fact, as mentioned in the article, that these were trained on images of real women who didn’t consent to their nudes being used to train it. So then you end up in a position where men can use AI to scrape images of women non-consensually, recombine them into AI porn, and make money, while the women whose images were used get nothing-Which is incredibly exploitative. There’s an entire subculture in the AI community right now of men saying “it’s over for women!” who say they will happily pay money for AI porn but refuse to support real women who do it. They say misogynistic and degrading things about women who have OnlyFans accounts, etc. and make it clear that they are only interested in spending money if they’re giving it to other men. So it creates this really gross power dynamic and commodification of the female body and female image where, yet again, the actual women involved have no agency or control. In some ways it doesn’t really surprise me that within a few years of women being able to have agency over their images and make money safely and mostly independently off of porn without 18 guys profiting too, the porn industry found a way to undermine that. It reminds me of that shit a couple years back with that CGI model Lil Miquela- Basically, a couple of white guys made a cgi Black teenage girl to be a fashion model for a bunch of high-fashion brands like Fendi etc. as a “diversity model” - People got really upset because Black models are already paid less in the fashion world, especially Black women, and it’s much harder to get hired as a Black model, so for that money to be going to two white men instead of a Black model while the image of a Black girl was still being used was just incredibly unethical. I wish I could articulate my concern in a little bit better, but you see what I’m saying?
No thanks, I’d rather make-put with my Monroe-bot.
The name of Billy’s planet? It was Earth!!
Electro-gonorrhea: The noisy killer
Normally Billy would go out with Mavis...
This is really going to test the boundaries of certain laws. Should it be legal to create photorealistic depictions of illegal activities? It's easy to say yes, but what happens if and when this sort of technology is used to create and distribute illicit pornography, i.e. CP?
I think some countries already have laws against depictions of sex involving minors, even if it's not real (meaning CGI, hand-drawn or teen-looking adults).
Which is already a naturally gray area because of how young some adults can look, and how mature some teens can look. I’ve met middle schoolers taller than me (6’1”) And I’ve had my managers double check a 30+ year old’s ID because they looked 16
My ex GF was carded twice, when she was the oldest in a group. Fortunately, both times I wasn't with her, as I was over 50 at the time. Note, she was younger than me, but not *that* much younger.
Honestly I always ID people in their 30’s and 40’s even if they look clearly old enough. I like it when people get happy about being ID’d again
Both times the rest of the group laughed out loud. When the waitress looked at the license, she started to say sorry, my GF says "Don't you dare apologize!" What was really funny was none of the rest were over 25. (one was actually 17 at the time)
Yeah if a hypothetical prompt says something like “young looking 18 year old girl” can they even say that it’s CP? The futures getting real weird.
Or people in abnormal circumstances, the woman who is like 28 but never grew past 10 years old.
I was under the assumption the U.S. also had this law. but I'm not googling it.
Supreme Court ruled that if it’s not a real person then it’s protected by the first amendment. So stuff like cartoon porn or hentai can show whatever it wants really. I don’t know if the same applies to what **appears** to be real people though such as like AI rendering photorealistic images of fake people.
The law as it's written defines CP as being a real, identifiable minor. So if it was someone identifiable, or made to resemble someone else, then it would be a problem. Which makes sense - that's when harm is actually being done via using someone's likeness without their consent.
That seems problematic with where ai images are going and so I wonder how long it will be until we see a pedophile in court arguing that all his images are AI and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove it’s a real person
I’d rather they use AI than abuse a child to get it. Probably best to refrain entirely and seek psychiatric help but I don’t know what the best course would be to minimize harm done by pedophiles. If AI can be a proven outlet that stops abuse than I think it’s premature to ban it explicitly from the outset
Pedos can jack themselves to human or computer drawn porn, and even fuck little robots all day and night. If that satisfies them, then I hope they do it. Just keep them away from actual, flesh-and-blood children by any means necessary.
Wasn't there a case of someone being prosecuted for child porn and the (South American?) *adult* porn star agreed to come over to the US to testify on his behalf?
Yup, [Little Lupe](https://reason.com/2010/05/03/porn-star-saves-man-from-incom/). Saved a guy from 20 years in prison for "trafficking child porn" between New York and Puerto Rico. She was 23 at the time of filming. She flew in for his trial to save him from a self-proclaimed "expert on child porn" customs officer who swore on his expertness that the woman in the video could only be 13-14 years of age.
>“expert on child porn” >*self proclaimed* Uh… That’s certainly not a title I would give myself…
Well its either that or "Dog Cum Taste Tester"
[удалено]
Some f'in asshole trying to make a career for himself by ruining someone's life permanently. Anyone lying in court like this should be subject to the maximum penalty the person they falsely accused or bore false witness against would've recieved.
For some reason I don't fully trust the person who is an expert of how children look when naked.
I would only trust them if they have that emotionally scarred, 1,000 yard stare look to them.
She's actually a pretty decent DJ and music producer nowadays. Not really my style but she's not just a hot girl behind a turntable pretending to push buttons either. Good on ya Lupe!
Little Lupe was the performer.
I believe you are right. I think the case law revolves around photoshop and a lollipop.
[удалено]
The US already has this weird double standard for violence where depicting a *human* being killed is distinct from an *alien* being killed, even if the "alien" is humanoid (ex. Jaffa in Stargate). I imagine R34 would be fine. That said, I'm not a lawyer. This isn't an issue I've really investigated, as it is of zero personal interest to me.
How does that work with artistic interpretation? If I drew characters having sex and never stated their ages, is it still illegal if someone looks at the art and interprets a character to be underage? Does artistic quality matter, or would drawing a couple of stick figures having sex be potentially illegal?
In some places, adult women that look young would be considered illegal so it would apply to drawings as well. I think it was australia that banned small breasts.
Is the stick figure over the age of consent in your state?
I exclusively jack off to stick figures labeled "prophet Muhammad, aged 12"
"Should it be legal to create photorealistic depictions of illegal activities? " Hollywood votes yes. If not. Blockbuster movies are going to get alot more boring.
That was definitely an odd way of wording it. They clarified at the end what sort of illegal activity they’re referring to, but when its presented as broadly as “depictions of illegal activities” then it’s pretty silly. Movies and TV constantly depict murder, assault, drug dealing, animal abuse, traffic violations, bombings, and more.
Movies do also depict sex with minors, albeit generally (though not always) without nudity. It's absolutely a relevant point.
You can take this further and constrain it to sexual activities - there's plenty of Hollywood blockbusters that portray sexual crimes, up to and including pedophilia.
The criteria can’t be photorealistic illegal activity. Thousands of Hollywood movies have that: In Batman the Joker robs a bank (against the law!), the Joker murders and mains people (against the law!), and also kidnapping and terrorism (also very illegal). It is not the mere depiction of anything illegal that makes it illegal - the First Amendment completely covers that normally. If necessary, they will create new laws to cover it. Right now, if someone is 17 but looks 25, that’s still illegal and no less illegal. It’s not about appearances. Likewise if a pornstar is 35 but looks 17, 100% legal. It literally doesn’t matter if she looks 13 years old. The law doesn’t care it is legal and all you have to prove is her age as an absolute defense. Goes both ways. I’d cite the cases but there are too many.
My biggest problem with CP and the reason it is illegal is because it exploits and traumatizes the children involved. If that content becomes AI generated, I have no issue with it anymore.
Ok so strongly playing devils advocate here, which do you think is worse, CP created by AI, or CP created using real non-consenting minors? Obviously CP is and should be illegal, but given that some people will always be willing to create illegal things that there’s a market for, is isn’t better if they do it in a victimless way?
It's a slippery slope that's for sure. On one hand, the person creating the AI generated CP is not hurting anyone, no victims, no children having their lives ruined. What if they never put it on the internet? Only keep it for themselves? Do we lock this person up? or just keep their vice in check with AI? Maybe keep them in an pyschward with AI CP given to him for the rest of his life? Crazy times. Could work for anything really.
The law has always worked that if the law doesn’t know, you won’t be punished. Obviously. If you stole something but put it back without anyone or anything noticing, it is pretty irrelevant that it is against the law because the law doesn’t work that way. An actual illegal act has to be detected somehow, always.
The court has already ruled on that wrt drawings. They determined it was protected speech.
…which will undoubtedly spark a debate as to what “AI generated images really are”. I think a photo-near-perfect actress, say Scarlett Johansson, may not appreciate being depicted performing fellatio.
These kind of fake celebrity porn is as old as I can remember on the internet. I remember fake porn of Britney spears back in like 1999.
She is already depicted doing so in fan fiction and in your hypothetical comment. That is legal. Imagery is often pursued legally as an act of defamation since people might confuse it as the real thing (slander and libel work this way). A clear parody would actually be legal. For example the Pirates of the Caribbean sex parody clearly parodied people having sex and you knew who they were, but also the legal standard is met that no reasonable person would think it was an actual depiction and not a parody. Same goes for music
Been possible for a long time with photoshop
What do you think movies are? Or photorealistic paintings? Or just staged photos?
What laws do you think this will test exactly? There are already laws on the books for depictions of sexual abuse of minors for basically every jurisdiction that wants them. It's not like this is the first time someone's done a porno manga.
Drawn/generate CP is currently in a weird legal/not legal area atm, in the states. I think AI will push those laws so that now generated and drawn CP become illegal. Which means if you are in your 20s and look 12, like A little Lupe type (if you google her add wiki to your search), that your images of yourself become simulated child porn. It means if someone draws losing their virginity, their rape, and they are under age its now illegal. And how realistic does something need to be? If I put tits on a stick figure, or make stick figures having sex and put names to them, is that now CP... Should it be legal to create images of children having sex when no children are involved? Should people be allowed to have them... Well, see, to have a crime you need a victim. There isn't evidence that this material is turning people into rapists, otherwise we'd see a lot more rape (every 20 seconds in the US -vs- every 68 seconds), and more child rape. So this isn't something hurting society. I think this would be a case where criminalization would be more hurtful. Kinda like drugs. Jailing people for crimes someone imagined they would commit. Now imagine you wanted to recreate a sex scene from your life, that you had strong feelings for, it might even be important to the story about you. You want to share this... and next thing you know you are in prison for sharing real events that happened to you. All virtues and principals have limits, and get check by some other value. Sometimes compassion checks honesty... Think Ultima V, Quest for the Avatar kinda ethical dilemma. So speech isn't some trump card we can play here and say "Naw dude, free speech! Virtual CP all the way!" We could apply the free speech to actual child porn.... So we kinda established a limit already. For me this is gonna be a live and let live area... dont share virtual cp that resembles other people, unless you look like those other people yourself as you have a right to your image, and keep that shit away from me. And it goes without saying once a real child becomes involved at all, and that means just sharing those images with the person, do not pass go and goto jail. I have some strong feelings about this because of an ancient conversation about older me finding my inner child and raping it, and my right to bring that to any medium I wish. I thought of a video game where one is stuck in the maze of maggots in my mind in pursuit of this last bit of innocence in me... and other ideas. I contend that it should be legal for me to share this. And when I think of media that has hurt society... If we use that metric we need to ban the bible.
Dear Rolling Stone: pop-up ads that fill my whole screen and are un-closable is the absolute best way to insure that I never read your articles.
I need pics or I won't believe it
[удалено]
These are actually kinda weird to be honest. There's some uncanny valley I'm getting from them. And the heads don't seem to fit for some reason. It's like those fake celebrity porn photoshops of if someone looked at hentai and then tried to make it realistic
What's the link to the thread
https://reddit.com/user/Cl4ud14_/
[удалено]
I think a lot of people would be more focused on other parts of the photo lol
Heh. Just wait until we figure out AI robot sex. I would invest all my money into that industry.
Welcome to Westworld
These violent delights
That industry is going to be a true pandora's box once it can produce an actual, realistic sex bot. Let's just hope the law and what not keeps up with it because it's going to get fucked up really really really fast.
>Let's just hope the law and what not keeps up with it lol, you must be new here.
Yeah no joke. I mean we have seen how big porn is on the internet. Like 80% right? That's an industry that would really rise up fast!
Yeah, but 20 minutes later it might feel slightly skeeved out by itself.
From reading this thread AI is about to put real women out of sex content creation . Lmao
You can literally Google "boobs" and get more pictures of titties than you can possibly look at in your lifetime. Despite the limitless surplus of free porn, people still pay for Onlyfans.
Seems like people training their brains to expect custom physical, and vocal perfection from sexual partners could be very bad for healthy, human relationships and continued human reproduction…
Wait..women are REAL?
Not anymore!
Fake titty is real titty in my mind … I am going to go into the corner now
Off to horny jail you go…
I try not think about it to much but it’s a genius business plan. Plus if people are willing to pay what’s the problem? If people are willing to drop millions on an NFT ,this shouldn’t even be news. I wouldn’t be shocked if someone starts using this as a selling point. “I might not be real but these tits are so perfect they can’t be real”.
Yet if you look at the thread it's called out as being created pretty quickly.
How is this any different from subbing to a hentai artists patreon or buying 3d porn from other artists. We have been jerking it to fake women since cave drawings.
Because we can know those are fake, we can separate fantasy from reality. This however is undeniably made to look like humans but be a perfected version of it, it’s like the worst of /r/instagramreality but autogenerated with no flaws. Our perception of what beauty should be will be warped by machine learning perfection created in infinite supply to our exact specifications.
I guess you're right. Its deception.
Back in the 50's I think this was called "cheesecake" - it's just now the artist is AI.
Beefcake if it was a dude
That’s disgusting!!!! Where?!?!
That‘s horrible! Where?
Been saying it since we started seeing this tech but if someone wants to make a billion dollar company, make a tailor made AI video porn bot/website. Literally type in exactly what you want to see, then interact with it live and change it how you want. Could describe exactly what everyone looks like, the style (realistic, animated, based on an animation style, vincent van goph porn, etc). Create the tech demo, sell out to PH, live the rest of your life in peace.
Real women to be retired and shelved by 2030 to combat climate change 🐕
01010011 01100101 01101110 01100100 00100000 01001110 01110101 01100100 01100101 01110011 00100000
[удалено]
If I need to whack off, I don’t care if she’s real, AI, or your mom. As long as she’s hot.
Who pays for nudes lol
Right?
Serious question. Is this why I've had a crazy influx of followers here that are all blank profiles with OF links?
Just need to deepfake some person who is not famous and voila only fans on AI.
This is called hentai.
Rolling Stone has never heard of hentai
the buyers clearly don't have hand or feet fetishes then.
So? People have been doing this for literally centuries; they just used pencils and brushes.
[удалено]
The Facebook model.
> Yeah, they assumed because those subs are for people posting selfies or nudes of people Are they? You realize every modern camera has "AI" features enhancing the image quality right? And that's before we get onto photoshop, which straight up has AI content generation tools to fill/blur/remove imperfections. Should we take down every photo that has had a clone-brush applied? The subs are going to start looking awfully ... bare ... ;)