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.

  • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    What I don’t understand is how many people condemn all of generative AI. For me the issue seems to be one of consent and compensation, and ultimately of capitalism.

    Would you be okay with generative AI whose training data was vetted to be acquired consentually?

    Not if it was used to undercut human artists’ livelihoods.

    Hypothetical future where everybody gets UBI and/or AI becomes sentient and able to unionize, maybe we look back at this again.

    I don’t think AI has a soul but there no reason it couldn’t be given one.

    • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m curious what you mean by soul here, if you’re using it in a metaphorical sense or the religious sense

        • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Well I’ve never heard of a religious person claiming AI could have a soul in the religious sense, and “soul” has other meanings than the religiously literal one, so yes?

          • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Well how many and what difference sorts of religious people have you come across?
            People hear “religious” and seem equate it with “Abrahamic malarkey it isn’t couth to call folks on.”

            “Religiously literal” seems a contradiction of terms a well. There is truth and there is ways to understand and to convey that truth.

    • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Undercutting artists’ livelihoods is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. I honestly don’t think UBI is going far enough, as it’s just a bandaid on the festering tumor of capitalism (but that’s a discussion for another day). But can’t the same be said about numerous other fields? AI can perform many tasks throughout all fields of work. At the moment it is still worse than an expert in most of these, but it’s a matter of when, not if, it surpasses that. Engineers, programmers, journalists, accountants, I can’t think of any job that is not en route to be streamlined or automated by AI, reducing need for humans and putting people out of work.

      Artists have it worse in the sense that they are often self employed, which makes them more vulnerable to exploitation and poverty. But isn’t the problem much larger than that?

      This whole debate somewhat reminds me of the swing riots. They were often portrait as anti-technology or backwards, when in actuality the reason for the revolts wasn’t that machines existed, but that they were used to undercut and exploit workers.

      I’m not trying to argue that any of what’s happening now is good, just to clarify again. The current “AI revolution” is rotten through and though. But AI is (for now, the consciousness question is super interesting, but not all that relevant at the moment) just a tool. It irks me that so much righteous anger is projected at AI, instead of the people using it to exploit people and maximize their profits, and the system that gives them the power to do so. Capitalists don’t care if it’s an AI, sweatshop workers overseas or exploited workers competing for jobs domestically. They’ll go with that earns them more money. We should be angry at the cause, not the symptoms.