[pseudo0]

This paper is trash. They preemptively define any models they don't like as "abusive models". This includes any model that can generate real people (including for transformative, fair use purposes like parody) and separately any NSFW model, including stuff like cartoons.

Also they are using a ridiculous definition of "NSFW" to achieve the correlation they want to find. They are putting the prompt (not the image) into ChatGPT and applying an arbitrary metric of NSFW-ness sentiment analysis that returns false positives. Actually NSFW content of real people was always banned on CivitAI.

[BoorishBears]

I'm not sure how anyone's really going act like the vast majority of the deepfakes generated with celebrity LORAs isn't porn when the term itself has become synonymous with non-consensual porn.

And it was just in April (less than a month ago) that they stepped up moderation of celebrity NSFW content: the study is from June of 2024.

The study was an attempt to avoid someone immediately trying to argue about a really obvious truth, but some people will still try to argue about the study about the really obvious truth.

[pseudo0]

I have been using CivitAI practically since it was created. Real person NSFW content has been banned since day one, because they didn't want to get sued. The change in April was a cosmetic update to how they displayed search results. It completely separated out real person content and NSFW content, to ensure that NSFW could not be displayed in proximity to real person content. This changed how content was displayed, not what content was allowed.

I'm sure some people do generate porn with celebrity LoRAs, but there are also plenty of legitimate uses such as parody, criticism, transformative art, etc. If people do post inappropriate content, there are civil remedies and now also federal criminal remedies via the TAKE IT DOWN Act. CivitAI is fully legally compliant, but they are being held hostage by an unelected, unaccountable payment processor cartel.