[lilboiluvr69]

Not to be that guy but why is a fictional depiction of porn different than a fictional depiction of anything else? What makes sex so special?

If I made fake porn of Donald Trump under your explanation, that is considered sexual assault, even if I tell everyone it is fake. Why?

Would making a parody video of Donald Trump getting beaten up also be considered assault?

Would making a parody video of the pope denouncing god be considered the same?

I'm sure all three are genuinely offensive. I'm just trying to understand, maybe its because I have a background growing up in a clothing optional community and being in poly relationships so I just have a much less taboo view of sexuality. But how can a fake video of someone that everyone knows is fake by itself be assault? It sounds like you just want it to be illegal because it offends you.

Instead of making it illegal to generate AI porn of celebrities, maybe we should examine our culture and why we see sexualization as so threatening. Why do we freak out if our kids see two people having sex but don't blink an eye when they see violence in movies?

[almatabata]

Most countries have exemptions around satire. If you did not you could not do things like puppet shows for example. Hence you could distribute any AI generated image if it looks like satire. With porn however you have no such exemptions, as such the copyright law applies and you cannot simply duplicate somebodies likeness without their explicit approval.

[dragonwriter]

> the copyright law applies and you cannot simply duplicate somebodies likeness

In many countries (like the US), someone's likeness is not covered by copyright law in the first place (in some US jurisdictions, publicity/personality rights may apply, but these are state-law rights and more likely to apply to people, e.g. celebrities, with already-commercialized identities, and against commercial use; they are much more limited than copyright rights.)

For porn/nudes specifically, revenge porn laws (which mostly are aimed at unauthorized release of actual imagery of the targeted kind, but aren’t always narrowly crafted) might also apply.

[ToucanLoucan]

> If I made fake porn of Donald Trump under your explanation, that is considered sexual assault, even if I tell everyone it is fake. Why?

Because, as I said, you are using someone's likeness to make sexually explicit material without their consent. What are you not understanding here?

> Would making a parody video of Donald Trump getting beaten up also be considered assault?

No.

> Would making a parody video of the pope denouncing god be considered the same?

No.

> I'm sure all three are genuinely offensive.

It being offensive isn't the problem.

> I'm just trying to understand, maybe its because I have a background growing up in a clothing optional community and being in poly relationships so I just have a much less taboo view of sexuality. But how can a fake video of someone that everyone knows is fake by itself be assault?

I am also poly (though never been clothing optional) but the problem is the "if" in your statement there, if everyone knows it's fake, that's doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting there. Do we know it's fake? Will we know the next model version of it is fake? If it is perfectly, completely realistically rendered, which as I understand it, is plus or minus the goal of generative art, to be completely and totally realistic?

We have a whole ass 63% of the United States who think angels are real, and that's based on nothing but the bible and indoctrination, do you think it's that big of a stretch for them to think that video of Trump pounding Obama in the backside is real, even if Obama has six fingers?

> Instead of making it illegal to generate AI porn of celebrities, maybe we should examine our culture and why we see sexualization as so threatening. Why do we freak out if our kids see two people having sex but don't blink an eye when they see violence in movies?

It's not about sex being threatening, it's about sex requiring informed, understood, and enthusiastic consent. Because if you don't own your own fucking face anymore, what do you own? If you can't even hold your own private bare ass naked form as something that is yours, only yours, and something no one else may have access to without your consent, what can you even say you do own anymore?

I posit the exact opposite question: why is it you are entitled to make pornography featuring the absolutely stunning likeness of Emma Watson? Because she's a "public figure?" Simply because you have the capability?

[lilboiluvr69]

I think that you definitely have a point regarding people claiming images are real, and I hadn't considered that even if you make an image and say on the same page it is fake, somebody could copy the image and redistribute it.

I suppose my concern is that I believe it is important for people to be able to freely share ideas. If someone has an idea of drawing someone naked, they should be able to share that. Painting it is a way of sharing it. And I generally interpret AI imagery as that form of art and a high-fidelity expression of that idea. I generally reject the concept that an artist needs consent to display someone in a non-commercial situation, because ultimately it is just an expression of an idea.

I agree that sex requires informed consent. But this isn't sex. This is someone making art that pisses another person off because people typically feel that sex and nudity are very private and very personal. And while I believe you have autonomy of your bare naked ass, I don't believe people have ownership over someone else saying "Here's what I think so-and-so's bare naked ass would probably look like."

I mentioned my background because I don't feel like my bare naked ass needs to be private, I don't really see the issue of someone sharing a picture of me naked, anymore than any other sort of picture. The same goes for sexuality. And of course we aren't talking about real pictures, we're talking about a person's impression. Photorealistic perhaps, but still an impression, an idea, a construct.

But there's another point I want to bring up. Sure, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's right or should be encouraged. And these tools have a lot of potential to hurt people. I mean, I could take an AI generation of someone proudly masturbating on camera, threatening to spread it around Facebook unless the victim pay me. And if they don't? Their friends could reject them. Family members might accuse them of being a slut. They could lose their job. That would be a terrible thing to happen to the victim. And I am sure it would be incredibly distressing for the victim. I'm not sure 'sexual assault' would be the correct term, but it is in the same category of awfulness. And these continuing improving tools make such scenarios possible.

But there is another thing that makes such scenarios possible: western society's bizarre view of sexuality, or at least bizarre in my mind. Even nudity is bad, I guess because it reminds people of sex? I don't think it's a bad thing to masturbate, I think most people would agree. And I think most people would agree that our hypothetical victim shouldn't be subject to social ostracism, shame, and possible unemployment. Perhaps even the image wasn't AI generated but real.

And yet...I get scam emails claiming that someone has a webcam picture of me masturbating and will share it if I don't send bitcoin to some address all the time. I've seen people get fired from their jobs for a lot less than a picture of them masturbating. Call it prudishness, call it what you will, but most Americans have very strong and frequently negative reactions to sex and nudity. I remember reading an article not too long about about a teenager girl who took her life after someone leaked some sexting pictures she took of herself to social media. Have you considered that perhaps someone seeing a (in this case fake) picture of you doing something sexual shouldn't be a life-destroying event?

As I said, our hypothetical blackmailer in this situation is doing something terrible. But they are allowed to do it because of our society's deranged obsession/fear of sex. Even though sex is something nearly everyone does (and should do), we are far more comfortable with our 10 year old kids seeing a fictional depiction of somebody's brains being blown out that a fictional depiction of two people making passionate love. I want you to just stop and think about that for a second, resist the temptation to say this is all necessary or normal. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

I'm hoping, really hoping, that society is moving in a direction where we have a healthier relationship with the human reproductive system. I think the Internet and access to pornography is helpful to that in some ways (and unhelpful in others), but AI also holds the potential move things in a better direction. Consider this: If anyone can make a sexualized image of anyone else at a click of a button, and everyone knows it, and nobody can do anything about it, maybe that will cause people to shift their morals around the shame of sex. I mean, even if our hypothetical blackmailer had a real image of me jerking off, I could just claim it's AI generated. Maybe rather than being horribly distressing, we would get to the point where someone making a fake porno of you is seen as a harmless prank.

I don't know...I'm high and probably full of shit right now, so take this rant as what you will. But I do know that something is dark and sick about our society when it comes to these things. I've seen so many people's lives hurt for breaking sexual taboos. I'm sure you feel strongly about not allowing people to be depicted without their consent. I'm sure many people in muslim-majority countries feel strongly about women being depicting without a Hijab (with or without their consent). That may seem like a false comparison, but consider it. Again, for me the idea of being thrown in prison for just being naked seems completely absurd. Look up people's rationality for the necessity of the Hijab and the necessity of public indecency laws around nudity and you might be surprised by what you find.

Anyway, I'll shut up now. I appreciate you replying and I didn't mean to make this post into soliloquy. TLDR: While I agree there are dangers associated with these technology I think that allowing it to remain legal for people to make fictional noncommercial depictions of other people in sexual situations ultimately moves society in a healthier direction that making these sorts of situations illegal, which reinforces what I perceive to be outdated and incredibly damaging taboos around what are normal (and necessary for the survival of our species) human experiences.