[dumpsterlid]

"It's entirely pointless. Humans are vastly superior in their ability to subvert and corrupt. Even if you were able to catch regular "harmful" images humans would create a new categories of imagery which people would experience as "harmful", employ allusions, illusions, proxies, irony etc. It's endless."

This is employing a fallacy that people have infinite amounts of energy and motivation to devote to being hateful. I have been on countless online communities in video games and elsewhere and when the chat in them doesnt allow you to say toxic, hateful stuff... guess what a whole lot less of that shit is said. Are there people who get around it by changing out characters to ones that look the same that dont trigger the censor or by using slang or by mispelling? Of course but the fact is I think if you talk to someone who runs communities like this they would laugh in your face if you said a degree of censorship of hate speech wasn't fundamentally beneficial.

A big aspect has got to do with the fact that if everybody agrees to be part of a community, part of that agreement is a social contract not to use hate speech and if someone flaunts that they are bypassing it.. in the obvious flaunting of the social contract established (it is obvious they had to purposely mispell the word) these people are alienating themselves by underlining the fact that the 99% of the community finds their behavior pathetic and unacceptable.

[AndrewKemendo]

I (and I would assume the OP) agrees that saying "entirely pointless" may be a bit hyperbolic

However the point stands that as a concept, humans will find a way to exploit and corrupt any technology. This is unquestionably true.

Bertrand Russell famously makes exactly this point as well, albeit specifically when it comes to violent application of technology in war. That: until all war is illegal every technological development will be used for War.

Your point however is also true, in that in certain spaces for certain audiences (communities), participants make it more difficult to exploit these things in ways that they don't want to and to explout them in ways they do.

Ergo, Technology is and remains neutral (as it has no will of it's own) and the people using and implementing technology are very much not neutral and imbue the will of the user onto the tool.

The real question you should be asking is, how powerful can a free tool/knowledge get before people start saying that only certain class of "clerics" can use it or that most communities agree that NO community should have it.

Notice on that last point how not-hard we're trying to get rid of Nuclear Weapons

[Al-Khwarizmi]

I don't think swearing in a video game is comparable to art.

If I swear at a video game and it comes out as ** I might think "OK, maybe I'm being a bit of an asshole, there could be kids here and it's a community with rules so I'll rather not say that".

If a tool to make art doesn't let me generate a nude because some American prude decided that I shouldn't, though... my reaction is going to be to fight the restriction in whatever way I'm able.

[XorNot]

Importantly, we're posting on a forum where this exact idea is true. HN doesn't stop all hate speech, or flaming and what have...but the moderation system stops enough that people generally don't bother.

[angusturner]

It seems pretty well-agreed that the HN moderation works because of dedicated human moderators and community guidelines etc.

I think spaces that effectively moderate AI art content will be successful (or not) based on these same factors.

It won't depend on some brittle technology for predicting if something is harmful or NSFW. (Which, incidentally, people will use to optimize/find NSFW content specifically, as they already do with Stable Diffusion).

[epups]

But this is a forum of interaction between people. These models can and should do things privately. It's the difference between arguing for censorship in HN or Microsoft Word.