You must log in or register to comment.
I’d rather have AI porn that doesn’t involve human trafficking, massive exploitation, actors/actresses with a high suicide rate, child abuse, and all of the rest of the evil/bad things that the porn industry currently has.
massive exploitation
Every “AI” algorithm that exists only does so because of billions of obscenely underpaid hours of labor in the third world.
AI isn’t being developed in third-world countries. I don’t know what you’re getting at.
OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic
This is just one example of many. Tagging millions of images to train algorithms has to be done with real people, and companies like OpenAI use platforms like Amazon’s “Mechanical Turk” to pay people in developing countries to do it. Without this massive amount of labor, generative algorithms wouldn’t be possible - and that’s before getting into apps that have just used writers in poor countries directly while pretending to be a computer program.
Can’t you say that about a majority of technology? I feel like the idea is betterment in the long run.
I don’t think they were saying exploitation was completely out of the picture
Can [cars] be ethical? Can [rocking chairs] be ethical? This question is nonsensical. “AI porn” is the output of a production process.
Are we being asked if it can be produced ethically? Or possessed ethically? Distributed ethically? Ethics are things that apply to conscious creatures, not inanimate objects.
If hentai is ethical then ai porn is too.
deleted by creator
Actually, that’s not even a fair comparison. Self-driving cars still involves putting people in the hands of an AI that is physically driving a car, putting both the passengers and people on the outside in danger. The mechanics of driving a car are far too complex for an AI right now, and won’t be anywhere near “safe” for another 50 years. There are just too many edge cases, too much unpredictable behavior from humans, and roads or road signs that challenge even humans from figuring out.
Human porn involves physically bringing people over to do the act, with all of the human criminality and exploitation that could entail. AI porn removes the human element almost completely. There is nothing to exploit if no humans are physically present.
deleted by creator
One, that’s an unrealistic goal. We can’t magically replace all human-driven cars with autopilot, so there’s no point in debating in those hypotheticals. Self-driving technology will need to account for human drivers, human passengers, and human pedestrians.
Two, self-driving technology today has been a disaster of bad decisions so far. Just take Waymo and San Fransisco. Protesters can stop the cars with a stupid traffic cone. Emergency services and police over there have been dealing with Waymo cars just sitting there in the middle of the street, or worse, not honoring police blockades. This shit is not ready, and the few “self-driving” cars on the road are a public menace.
deleted by creator
Didn’t read the article. Why? Don’t care enough what the author thinks.
I’ve considered this before. IMO, it’s kind of a fruit from the poison tree situation. If all porn in the model is consensual and legal, then it actually has the capacity to significantly undercut an industry that has a lot of exploitation in it (particularly the illegal, inconsensual part), because now you can just create what you want to see when you want to see it, and that seems like it’s a lot easier and cheaper than paying a criminal or group of criminals to hurt someone. The reality, of course, is that the model almost certainly has ingested illegal or inconsensual content. Ethically speaking, that could mean that anything it produces will carry that stain with it. I think there’s a potential here to reduce net suffering, but it’s like any tool; it all depends on how people decide to use it, and I’m not sure that the bad actors won’t just completely ruin this for everyone.
Removed by mod
I don’t give a shit what the AI was trained on.
Anything legally made public is fair game.
If human artists can look at stuff, then so can the idiot robot. So what if AI doesn’t learn exactly how human artists do? Submarines don’t swim like fish. What matters is, they share an environment. Those inputs influence the model’s outputs. It discerns information from each image and its labels.
When things work properly, it can vaguely approximate certain specific images, without being a wildly inefficient compression method. That’s why you can put in “chilidog chaise-longue” and get some comfortable abomination that satisfies both concepts. There’s not a specific couch or hot dog involved. And yes, you can also put in “Darth Vader strangling Bugs Bunny” and get an image that violates all kinds of copyright laws, but (1) a human artist could also do that and (2) you fucking asked for that.
Any variation on “woman, but naked” is not a problem with AI. The model can be overtrained and shove results toward specific inputs, which is why it’s so important to use a metric fuckload of inputs. But any model is going to generate what you asked for, based on all those inputs. A lot of truly unguided output will resemble existing things, because it turns out most images are of existing things. There’s a lot of inputs with the Kardashians in them. Just… so many. Asking for a picture of a woman and getting Kim Kardashian is correct. If she’s in a lot of the inputs, that will influence the output, even if her name was never an explicit label.
If you can guide the output away from that, you can guide the output toward that. It is literally the same mechanism.
This is one of many alleged problems that’s impossible to solve without destroying the whole technology and pretending it never happened. In short: no. This genie’s not going back in the bottle. The techniques are aggressively public and the underlying technology is consumer hardware. You’d have an easier time outlawing Photoshop, which has been capable of combining famous women’s faces and strong pornography since Macs were in black and white. It’s those results that are a problem - not the general capacity to create such results. Otherwise we’d outlaw scissors and glue.
We’re not talking about guns, where even the correct uses are violence and threats of violence. These are art tools. They make jay-pegs. They can make them with specific celebrities’ faces, or in particular artists’ styles, but that’s not any different from knowing what trees are.
This is not a Good Old-Fashioned AI situation. We sifted a zillion pixels through a thousand layers of matrix math. Some models come eerily close to decent punchlines, when asked to draw comics with word bubbles. They have never been trained on text. They’ve just seen a lot of comics. A model that learned to recognize and correct English grammar, visually, is gonna know where tits go. If you can’t live with that then I suggest building a very large suborbital EMP.
I agree with you for the most part but that’s not really what the article is talking about.
It’s mostly about whether it’s moral to have the AI go along with more taboo roleplay. It finishes off by asking if AI is capable of giving consent.
The article is the sort of nonsense that could only come from English print media discussing sex. No questions or contextual perspective on leaping from the skeeziest strip-club goers to people jerking off at home. No consideration of how a robot simulating a human relationship is so much weirder than a robot doing what it’s told. Just blithely accepting the premise that interactive pornography needs to work exactly like an actual human person, and trying to shock the reader into agreement by naming specific gross kinks. It’s all shoving you toward the assumption that a vulnerable, innocent… large language model… must be protected from indignities that are totally fucking imaginary.
If a chatbot isn’t cognizant then consent doesn’t matter.
I am the first person to jump down people’s throats for any Chinese Room bullshit, but wherever we’re going, we are definitely not there yet. Especially if these are just masks over some all-purpose GPT situation. It’s a generic robot pretending to a specific person. It doesn’t have opinions. Swap the names in a conversation and it’ll pretend it made all of your comments.
As for women putting out deliberate interactive mockups of themselves, and expecting to control what people do with them… yeah hey good luck, but I would recommend just not fucking doing that, for blindingly obvious reasons.
This is perfect 🍿 time.
What kind of popcorn? I’m a fan of kettle corn.
The article seems to be mostly about imposing limitations over more taboo sex acts and uses the examples of bondage and vomit.
It does get into ethics near the end with the following section
One key difference between AI porn and traditional porn, however, is that adult content creators are human beings who can consent to what they will and will not participate in. AI isn’t conscious, ergo no consent. “It sets up a dynamic where you’re ordering the sex acts that you want, and they’re being delivered,” Lori Watson, a professor at Washington University who has written about the ethics of pornography and sex work, said of AI sexbots. “That’s not how ethical sex works.”
AI isn’t conscious, ergo no consent.
I’m so confused by this quote and hope there is something that was left out. If something isn’t conscious it seems that consent is not absent - it is inapplicable.
I challenge anyone to name a situation where consent is logically relevant to something that doesn’t have consciousness (e.g. something other than humans or animals).
Personally I don’t think it would be much less ethical than watching any other adult content. It’s put out there and people use it how they want often without being directly told “You can masturbate to this”
With AI content there probably wouldn’t be a lot of criminal issues compared to traditional adult content like human trafficking and GirlsDoPorn for example.
There’s seriously restrictions to stop you from treating an ai sexbot badly? Why are we treating these programs like they’re human?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That couldn’t be further from truth. And it should be asked more often.
Is it ethical to punish people of victimless crimes?
Is it ethical for same sex couples to get married?
Is it ethical to make golfball cores from yeeted fetuses?Now the answers to these questions should be obvious (assuming you’re not an asshole on my proprietary metric), but the question still has to be asked before a change to better can be made
deleted by creator
Betteridge’s law (what you are referencing without knowing the name of) is mostly just a symptom of the increasing “anti-intellectual”/“anti-journalism” push by the various totalitarian regimes of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
In academia (which this is a lot closer to) it is wrong. And even among “pop journalism” it is really 50/50.
But people, like you, cite it as an excuse to not actually engage with the topic at hand while feeling a sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
deleted by creator
Well we have clearly an example here that is definitely not a straightforward no answer, so your meme is misplaced
deleted by creator
What do you mean?
deleted by creator
No need to sound pretentious. Even now your comment isn’t super clear.
almost every news headline that ask questions
Do you mean ethical questions or general questions?
almost always should result in a NO answer
Do you mean writers set up a question and it typically ends with them disagreeing?
deleted by creator
My comment about you sounding pretentious was in regards to
It’s a well known concept
I was asking you to clarify what you were talking about and you immediately came off as demeaning and full of yourself.
I don’t know if your explanation relates to ethics and the news, consent, or clickbait. Without knowing what you are talking about I couldn’t even argue with you if I wanted to.
deleted by creator
Instead of accusing people of being pretentious, you could instead just ask what they meant. You might get a better response as people aren’t obligated to respond in kindness to insults.
My original comment was asking “What do you mean?”. I asked someone else what you could have meant and they explained it as “It means if you have to ask whether something is ethically okay than there’s a strong chance it isn’t”. You could have just explained the expression.
Your comments in this thread like
The point I made which you missed, is….
didn’t really help my opinion of your tone. People are just trying to discuss the topic.
Either way I think my thoughts are inline with @[email protected] when it comes to that and it was in a parallel thread with you so I won’t bother rehashing it.
Ai can’t be ethical yet, asking it to something as protected as sex and dignity is going to end up with everyone involved being sued into oblivion. I don’t recommend investing in anything like that.
Based on your reference to sex as some sacred thing (rather than mashing of bodies that tends to get really sticky), I am assuming you are making the same mistake a lot of people make:
Ethics are not morality. Ethics are not the law. Ethics… are a lot more complicated than a message board post but can be summarized as a code of “rules” and thought processes an individual applies to a scenario to figure out what they are comfortable with or obligated to do.
And, in that regard, we start getting into theory regarding what “self” or intelligence is. But the rules outlined in the article about consensual acts and different “models” having different boundaries seems to pretty much be textbook ethics. And the structures around those (human moderators, flagging, etc) seem like ways to enforce that.
People do treat sex as a “sacred” thing, yes. This is pretty prevalent as a concept and is enshrined into law in many many places. Irregardless of our personal preferences.
