DogMuffins @ DogMuffins @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

5

Comments

1,190

Joined

2 yr. ago

Are you daft? I assume that the person depicted in the photo at thispersondoesnotexist.com does not exist.

Which fake people?

Basically, yes.

Is the person under-age at the time the image was generated? and ... Is the image sexual in nature?

If yes, then generating or possessing such an image ought to be a crime.

IDK why this dumb thought experiment makes me so grumpy everyone someone invokes it, but you're going to have to explain how it's relevant here.

Of course they exist. If the AI generated image "depicts" a person, a victim in this case, that person "by definition" exists.

Your argument evaporates when you consider that all digital images are interpreted and encoded by complex mathematical algorithms. All digital images are "fake" by that definition and therefore the people depicted do not exist. Try explaining that to your 9 year old daughter.

Nah this is that other thing. I want to say Survivorship bias but that's just because I can't think of the right term.

Edit: confirmation bias!

Amazing.

I think you're missing the point of the post. Nuclear weapons are an actual deterrent, not just a perceived one.

Yeah, I can see how praying could influence reality by altering your perspective or your behavior, really just by reminding yourself regularly about the things you really value.

There's obvious ones like "God please help me be a patient and considerate co-worker", but even "God please give me a new awesome car" - someone who prays about that 4 times a day is going to be focused on saving for it. God helps those who help themselves and all that.

On the other hand "God please make a free car park for me outside the shop" ain't helping anyone.

I've never encountered a traffic crossing that cycles when there's no one waiting.

I think that the point this comment is trying to make is that because it has become so easy to make these images, their existence is not very meaningful. All deep fakes are very realistic. You can't tell fakes from originals.

Like as an adult, if I saw an "offensive" image of a co-worker, my first assumption would be that it's probably AI generated, my first thought would be "which asshole made this image" rather than "I can't believe my co-worker did [whatever thing]".

IMO the days of searching for porn of prospective employees are over. With the advent of AI generated porn, what would be the point of that?

By.... checking the age of the person depicted in the image?

This is the way. I finally got around to setting this up a few months back.

I guess you're technically correct but I think the assertion is based on a misconception, as though xitter could be gutted and sold for it's constituent parts.

Like imagine someone bought a house for $1m, and then lived there for a year and their dog shat on the living room carpet every day. You wouldn't say "oh well it still has some value because you could sell the copper wiring for something."

Yes you could sell the copper wiring, but it's worth far more where it is - you just need to change the carpet and then the property would return to something approaching it's former glory.

I'm not certain but I think in my jurisdiction I think distribution of CSM is the more likely charge than revenge porn.

For a 40 year old, spending 10 years in jail and the rest of your life on the sex offenders registry would be a deterrent of some kind. I ought not to do x because I don't want to bear consequence y.

For a 12 year old, even if they understand that some behaviors have very deleterious consequences, they have no way to weigh those consequences. How long is 10 years? Would this be a bit like being sent to my room? What is a registry? Making these pictures on the computer is illegal, downloading torrents is illegal, dad downloads torrents all the time.

I'm just saying that if the objective is to avoid the harm of victims, then heavy punishments are unlikely to achieve that.

There may be other revenue streams but not enough to cover costs.

That doesn't preclude what I said though.

I don't think kids think about consequences in this way. Also not sure if charging a 12 year old as a paedophile is the right move.