The companies that host and sell an online image to nude service using a tuned version of that tool specifically designed to convert images into nudes are definitely a business model.
I agree it's impractical and opens dangerous free speech problems to try and ban or regulate the general purpose software, but, I don't have a problem with regulating for profit online image generation services that have been advertising the ability to turn images into nudes and have even been advertising their service on non porn sites. Regulating those will at least raise the bar a bit and ensure that there's isn't a for profit motive where capitalism will encourage it happening even more.
We already have revenge porn laws that outlaw the spread of real nudes against someone's will, I don't see why the spread of fakes shouldn't be outlaws similarly.
Why not blame the spread? You can't ban the tool, it's easily accessible software and that only requires easily accessible consumer hardware, and you can even semi easily train your own models using easily accessible porn on the Internet, so if you want to ban it outright, you'd need to ban the general purpose tool, all porn, and the knowledge to train image generation models. If you mean ban the online apps that sell the service on the cloud, I can get behind that, it would increase the bar to create them a little, but that is far from a solution.
But, we already have laws against revenge porn and Internet harassment. I think the better and more feasible approach that doesn't have far reaching free speech implications would be to simply put heavy penalties on spreading nudes images of people against their will, whether those images are real or fake. It's harassment as revenge porn, and I didn't see how it's different if it's a realistic fake. If there is major punishment for spreading these images then I think that will take care of discouraging the spread of the images for the vast majority of people.
I think there's a big difference between creating them and spreading them, and putting punishments on spreading nudes against someone's will, real or fake is a better 3rd option. The free speech implications of banning software that's capable of creating them is too broad and fuzzy, but I think that putting harsh penalties on spreading them on the grounds of harassment would be clear cut and effective. I didn't see a big difference in between spreading revenge porn and deep fakes and we already have laws against spreading revenge porn.
They're easier to create and more realistic. The prevalence and magnitude of an immoral act impacts how it should be legislated. Personally I don't care if people make these and keep it to themselves, but as soon as you spread it I think it's immoral and harassment and there should be laws to prevent it.
Public posts on the Internet can be scraped by anyone for free. Reddit is more selling easy to consume access to that information via structured high bandwidth APIs. You should do as they said, and tell them to delete all your data so they aren't allowed to host or profit off it anymore.
All governments produce propaganda, even all people produce propaganda. But to treat both countries the same is ridiculous. The magnitude of propaganda Russia creates is way greater than most countries.
Checks and balances are about preventing a small faction of the government from gaining absolute control of the entire government. It's not about preventing a say, it's about preventing a total takeover that prevents anyone else from having a say in the future.
Almost nobody knows the academic definitions of most political ideologies, they're just all cable news buzzwords now. If you took a sample of the population I'd be surprised if even 5% could give you the correct academic definitions for the vast majority of political ideology terms.
Actually, the Senate can't be gerrymandered because they serve the entire state and state lines don't change. The problem is that it's unequal by design.
Gerrymandering happens when redistricting gets taken over by a party and they for example make themselves a district where they comfortably win by 70% and in another district the other party wins by 90%. Had they been non manipulated then they would have lost both by 60%.
It made more sense when the United States was first being set up and the union was more like the European union, but it quickly became a full-fledged country government and makes zero sense now.
Digital marketplaces use a near monopoly to extort developers into accepting these inflated cuts. I simply will never accept an inflated rate caused by a monopoly as a good thing. Without that near monopoly there is no way they could maintain a 30% cut.
I don't think any of those tests ever claimed to be a general intelligence test, they're specific knowledge tests. Books also contain a ton of specific knowledge but books are not intelligent.
There's some studies that found that bone density could be affected, but considering the suicide rate of trans people I'm going to say that's a tiny sacrifice for the assurance that you can have the body your brain wants to be in.
Was about to ask what's with all the shilling here but just realized which community this is. Have fun shilling for a mega Corp. Go tell yourselves that 30% cut isn't ridiculous.
Giving him a contact is not impolite, it's just how business is done, and it doesn't just protect you, it protects him too so the terms are agreed on in advance.
Considering all the conspiracy theories involving fluoride in the water supply, you'd think they'd catch on to the actually dangerous lead in the water supply and come up with conspiracies involving that instead.
The companies that host and sell an online image to nude service using a tuned version of that tool specifically designed to convert images into nudes are definitely a business model.
I agree it's impractical and opens dangerous free speech problems to try and ban or regulate the general purpose software, but, I don't have a problem with regulating for profit online image generation services that have been advertising the ability to turn images into nudes and have even been advertising their service on non porn sites. Regulating those will at least raise the bar a bit and ensure that there's isn't a for profit motive where capitalism will encourage it happening even more.
We already have revenge porn laws that outlaw the spread of real nudes against someone's will, I don't see why the spread of fakes shouldn't be outlaws similarly.