168
Trolls have flooded X with graphic Taylor Swift AI fakes (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@beehaw.org
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Sexually explicit AI-generated images of Taylor Swift have been circulating on X (formerly Twitter) over the last day in the latest example of the proliferation of AI-generated fake pornography and the challenge of stopping it from spreading.

X’s policies regarding synthetic and manipulated media and nonconsensual nudity both explicitly ban this kind of content from being hosted on the platform.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 2 years ago (16 children)

I just notice alot of cheerleaders for this " art " form come from a place of vindictiveness against people with artistic talent and their positions are rooted more in a desire to see people the view as gatekeepers receive comeuppance than an honest defense of an ostensive tool.

It can't really be both.

It totally can. Take the example of fast food. Simultaneously a threat to traditional cooking and terrible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    And yet there's still plenty of traditional restaurants.

    Fast food provides a new option. It hasn't destroyed the old. And "terrible" is, once again, in the eye of the beholder - some people like it just fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    Fast food provides a new option.

    Fast food damages the health of society and impoverishes communities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    Unhealthy things should be forbidden? Even if they were, this is drifting off of the subject of AI art.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Things that are bad for society should be suppressed and things which are good for society should be promoted. That would seem to be the point of a society.

    Further, I notice a pastern in your replies of bringing up metaphor then rejecting the very metaphor as off topic or irrelevant when it is engaged to it's logical conclusion.

    No accusing you of engaging in bad faith or anything, but it smells (sorry, metaphor again) less-than-fresh.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Things that are bad for society should be suppressed and things which are good for society should be promoted.

    Should we also have a single wise man to decide which is which? That has been tried before, multiple times.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Things that are bad for society should be suppressed and things which are good for society should be promoted. That would seem to be the point of a society.

    Great, now we just need to establish whether AI art is "bad for society", and if it is then whether the effects of attempting to ban it would be worse for society.

    Further, I notice a pastern in your replies of bringing up metaphor then rejecting the very metaphor as off topic or irrelevant when it is engaged to it's logical conclusion.

    What metaphors did I bring up? You're the one who brought fast food into this. I don't see any other metaphors in play.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Great, now we just need to establish whether AI art is "bad for society"

    That seems fairly evident

    You're the one who brought fast food into this.

    You were fine engaging fastfood until I pointed out it, like AI " art " was terrible. Only then did you deride the metaphor as off topic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    That seems fairly evident

    Hardly. There wouldn't be much debate about it if it was, would there?

    You were fine engaging fastfood until I pointed out it, like AI " art " was terrible. Only then did you deride the metaphor as off topic.

    Alright, in future I will try to remember to immediately reject any metaphors you bring into play rather than attempt to engage with them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    There wouldn't be much debate about it if it was, would there?

    Sure there can be. People debate crypto being good and that's roundly recognized as ecocide. People "debate" who counts as people all the time. People can be wrong and loud.

    Alright, in future I will try to remember to immediately reject any metaphors you bring into play rather than attempt to engage with them.

    Not saying you have to do that, but if you don't it's rather untoward to bring it up later as though it's a problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Ethereum switched to proof-of-stake a year and a half ago, it no longer has a significant environmental impact.

    Oh wait, this is an analogy, isn't it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    So you're into the other tech scam too, are ya?

    Fancy that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    No, just pointing out who's in the "loud but wrong" camp on that one. If ecological concerns are why you think crypto is bad, well, that's not clear cut any more.

    You want to keep going with this analogy you brought up, then?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not the one who claimed they were off topic. I'm the one who was right about generative " art " being a god-damn scam. Easy mistake to make I suppose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    All analogies eventually fail when you dig into them far enough, by nature of what an analogy is. That is, an analogy is not exactly identical to the thing being analogized. If you want to be able to use analogies but refuse to acknowledge that they eventually lose relevance when you stretch them too far then you're simply not amenable to reason.

    And then you go and explicitly beg the very question under debate with an "of course I'm right." No, AI art isn't a "scam," whatever you mean by that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent