[Zanni]

If you can't distinguish between using a public figure's likeness for a political cartoon vs. AI porn (or between a private fantasy and a public post), then maybe you should sit this one out too.

Revenge porn is bad. Imaginary revenge porn is just as bad.

[Jugglewhoa]

It's quite alarmist to suggest altered images the most popular woman in the world are classified as "revenge porn."

People in popular culture have been used by artists to their liking since the beginning of art. Don't compare this to someone posting naked pictures of an ex who has a completely private life and doesn't spend their entire being trying to be in front of every camera possible, usually in outfits that make it quite easy for the imagination to extrapolate into the pornographic.

[hammyhavoc]

Being popular is not consent to have your likeness used in a way that you have not agreed to. It's that simple.

[DANmode]

Is this a legal argument, or a moral one?

So other commenters have a direction to debate you in.

My response, to both: good luck putting this cat back in the bag.

Whatever harm these people are doing, they'll continue to do it "in private"; be aware of the "new normal" and adjust accordingly seems like the only pragmatic approach.

It's literally just art in bad taste.

That's not a new experience for most people on the Internet.

[hammyhavoc]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/deepfake-nude-westfield-h...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/generative-ai-images-child-s...

So is this "literally just art in bad taste"?

[DANmode]

Also, instead of rushing around to change the goalposts (from the Swift story), why didn't you reply to any of the statements or questions I put forward?

If you're only here to pontificate, not curiously discuss your position, you're gonna have a bad time.

[DANmode]

Well, art is something a creative makes that evokes an emotional reaction.

Seems you've made it art, even if it wasn't before.