[CSSer]

On the commit they referenced[0] you can view the gifs by clicking the overflow/details button (three dots) in the title bar and clicking view file. The target (which I believe is the original) is a shirtless, very young girl cropped at just above the breasts. The output looks to be a slightly older young women. I can only speculate, but this could be interpreted as a kind of dog whistling or subtextual illustration of use for child pornography-related doctoring. I don’t think it’s far-fetched to argue the example is at least borderline inappropriate when there are plenty of other reasonable examples the commit author could’ve opted to add instead. Perhaps this was a catalyst for the maintainer to consider how much worse it could’ve been and decided they’d seen enough to know they should get out now before they encounter something worse.

Since I’ve been exploring ML image generation I’ve seen an alarming amount of disturbing imagery with young girls or hypersexualized, extremely young women as the subjects, and I’ve encountered it without seeking it out in any way. It’s just out there on certain smaller AI gallery sites, which I will not promote here, alongside normal content. On one recent occasion I saw what I could only describe as “soft-core” child pornography. It was enough to make me close the site immediately, and I’m not what most would describe as a prude.

[0]: https://github.com/s0md3v/roop/commit/cf7ba1caf932e8c9f39d97...

[catiopatio]

This is a very serious accusation you’re leveling, and it does not appear to be supported by the facts.

Conflating that anodyne image with “disturbing imagery with young girls or hypersexualized, extremely young women” is wildly irresponsible on your part.

[CSSer]

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. If it helps to clarify things, I don't personally think the image itself matches the quotation you shared from my comment. I never made any statements about the uploaded image beyond describing it because no one asked and it wasn't relevant. I'm sorry I can't agree that it's "anodyne" because the world is filled with diverse convictions about what constitutes what kind of public nudity is appropriate and when, but I do personally agree that the image is innocuous at any rate.

My anecdotal experience and concern was provided for context and conversation around what I clearly stated was pure speculation about realized ethical concerns the maintainer may have had. In other words, I was suggesting that maybe the author had seen the same kind of stuff I've seen, saw this image, and due to personal convictions decided they felt uncomfortable with continuing work on this project. Based on what some others have mentioned, that actually doesn't seem that far from the truth.

I have no idea what the person who uploaded that image's intent was, and I'm certainly not trying to libel anyone.