[cataphract]

> The only thing I can see people worry about is someone putting a real person's face on a porn image. But deepfakes are also around for years and we don't really care or affected that much. Why bother with what people do behind closed doors? As long as they don't harm anyone, what they do in private is their own business.

The problem is when it doesn't stay behind closed doors, but instead when this is used to harass the person being depicted. Non-consensual distribution of porn is a big deal because there is a lot of evidence of its harms, including a very large fraction of people with suicide ideation.

[brucethemoose2]

But the assumption that circulating porn of someone is real is broken.

It will take some time to collectively learn, and it will still be disturbing, but the implications of your nudes being passed around will be totally different than today.

[cataphract]

That's not how it works: that either there is an assumption or there is no assumption. The assumption may weaken, but what will happen is that if someone sends a fake video to many people, you're guaranteed that a substantial fraction will believe it's real. I mean, a big portion of the population believe in outlandish conspiracy theories. You're way overestimating people's skepticism.

[bondarchuk]

But presumably all (most) of that evidence is from before AI-generated porn.

[galaxytachyon]

There are already laws for that. Like I said, deepfakes and photoshop have been around for a while. The same concerns were raised back then and now it is just another type of porn. Turn out those petty enough to use deepfakes to bully are also often not bright enough to make them good enough. It will be the same with AI. In many ways it is still easier to spot an AI generated image than some photoshopped photos.

So I still don't see any problem.