[lgkk]

Are you causing harm through your actions? That’s really the only metric I use, and it’s pretty simple. If my actions were increasing mental issues, leading to people getting sick via inaccuracies, or causing pension funds to be misallocated then sure. You should call me out on it.

Money isn’t the end all be all. Id say if someone can make porn and publish it they can surely do something else with that “creative” energy.

[spigottoday]

I agree! They could be making movies like Winnie the Pooh, Blood and Honey or maybe the Saw movies. Lots of creativity there and no law against it. Probably wouldn't have been fired. But people-a husband and wife pleasuring each other? Intolerable! And while we are at it, you know that statue of David? Put some pants on it!

[RHSeeger]

> But people-a husband and wife pleasuring each other? Intolerable!

Exactly this. There are plenty of couples out there making videos of themselves having sex, and it's not my place (or anyone else's) to tell them they can't.

[flandish]

The “frustrating” part is that a corporation only feels “harm” via financial impact and not the kind of harm we really speak of when discussing the actions of humans.

This is why “my own time” should be my own time. If I cause harm to an individual, there are already laws to deal with that.

If I have yet to cause financial harm to a corporation and they cannot articulate how my actions during time in which they do not pay me they should not be allowed to even consider firing me.

Things, imho, will improve when the default to seeing a video/post is to think “that’s AI, not Jim.”

Can’t prove it’s me? Can’t fire me.

[RHSeeger]

> Are you causing harm through your actions?

1. I would argue the bar should be "more harm then good", otherwise most of human activity would be banned.

2. Since you've given no compelling evidence that that is the case, you don't have much of an argument for preventing it.

[maxbond]

> You should call me out on it.

Well, I was using thought experiments to avoid calling you out, but if you want me to be forthright, I can do that. I don't want to get into an argument though, honestly I don't even want to get into a debate, so I'm gunnuh say my piece and you can take it or leave it. I just don't have the energy to get into a debate. (Not to say you aren't free to respond however you see fit, I just probably won't respond if you defend your position.)

I do think you are taking a position which is harmful. For more reasons than I can get into in an HN comment, but the highlights are, you're exaggerating the potential for harm; you're projecting flat narratives in your head onto real people and using that to justify removing their bodily autonomy (eg, not everyone makes porn because they're desperate - some people are exhibitionists [no, I don't understand why either], some people enjoy that kind of work, some people do it for reasons neither of us have imagined); generally you're trying to impose your moral standards on to others.

[_a_a_a_]

You said:

> I don’t personally know why I should be forced to accept or approve that kind of way of money making.

but if there's no harm, and porn is consensual, all is good - right?

> Id say if someone can make porn and publish it they can surely do something else with that “creative” energy.

why should they if it, by your metric, is doing no harm?