| Except if we're splitting hairs on this level, it's not actually that person, it's a likeness of that person. ... I don't think that has merit as a position, really, but I also don't think that "consensual porn" is accurate, either. I think we need a different term to involve porn made without the physical or mental involvement of an individual, to separate it from shit like sneaking upskirt shots or rape videos. It's fun to lump them in together, and if you look just at the definition of the words... yes, it is. Sure. That's not really debatable. But do you truly believe that drawing a distubingly-accurate porn picture of someone is equivalent to those other things? While the term may be "accurate", it's not helpful to distinguish the offense and its impact. I think we should consider removing all identifying names from the corpi used to train these models. At the very least, I think someone should have the right to have their name removed from data labeling used in training. Tangentially: It's always been possible for particularly-skilled artists to do a rendition of someone else that is very realistic and yet would ostensibly be without consent. They would do this by directly referencing real life photographs taken of an individual and interpolate details where missing, much like what's going on with our fancy parrot programs. Is this a fundamentally-distinct transgression, or are we only concerned about it because of how easy AI has made this transgression? |