discussion AI CG Art isn't ethical

[GockGaming]

Sure but wouldn't you say the porn here is unethical too?

 

[walld]

A lot of the AI pics that recreate more real images have a potential flaw, that someone somewhere in the 8,000,000,000 and more of us looks pretty much exactly like that image. Not talking about deep fakes, but total AI work.

And it doesn't matter the situation the AI pic creates, that seems like exploiting someone to me, even it if it is 100% fake.

The counter to this is that the assumption made by OP that an AI needs to be trained on real images of that situation to recreate that situation doesn't necessarily hold true. The whole point of AI is to absorb general knowledge, much like artists do, and then create a new output.

In any case, AI is already out in the wild. Pandora's box has been opened. General modeling from all corners of the internet will advance, along with homebrew AI. Nothing will stop it, and no code of ethics will limit home users or small groups, etc.

Probably a dark time for anyone caught in the mix, but it is also fun to watch what will happen as it grows.

 

[Xonia]

A lot of the AI pics that recreate more real images have a potential flaw, that someone somewhere in the 8,000,000,000 and more of us looks pretty much exactly like that image. Not talking about deep fakes, but total AI work.

And it doesn't matter the situation the AI pic creates, that seems like exploiting someone to me, even it if it is 100% fake.

The counter to this is that the assumption made by OP that an AI needs to be trained on real images of that situation to recreate that situation doesn't necessarily hold true. The whole point of AI is to absorb general knowledge, much like artists do, and then create a new output.

In any case, AI is already out in the wild. Pandora's box has been opened. General modeling from all corners of the internet will advance, along with homebrew AI. Nothing will stop it, and no code of ethics will limit home users or small groups, etc.

Probably a dark time for anyone caught in the mix, but it is also fun to watch what will happen as it grows.

oh totally. The chance of AI looking like someone is more likely to happen than another person having a doppleganger..WHICH cant happen, two totally unrelated people having the same looks. Genetics and Computer code are damn near getting to the point of being identical in which after a certain point, it will repeat itself

 

[User_62433]

1. I discovered that rubbing my dick makes me feel good when I was 6 or 7 - looooong before I discovered porn.
2. I'm not gonna stop watching porn (AI or real) just because you said so.
3. Your entire post sounds like that of someone whose PP can't get up at the sight of a naked woman, so he decided to try and ruin it for everyone.

i'm not sure you understand my point. it seems what you read was something like, "I, random internet user, demand that you, my subjects, stop fapping"

not my argument. my argument is that ai art provably uses images from real people who didn't consent to have those images used. some of those people were hurt during the making of those images. sometimes ai art recreates those images verbatim.

most people would say that making and sharing pornography of people who are not into it is uncool.

hence, you should not want to watch ai art.

i'm not claiming authority here, or even a functional pp, just saying that there's a lot of porn, and some of it is more ethical than others. and even perverts should care about ethics.

or don't i guess. if you want to have a weirdly aggressive fap to resist my authoritay or something I can't stop you.

 

[Taximan]

i'm not sure you understand my point. it seems what you read was something like, "I, random internet user, demand that you, my subjects, stop fapping"

not my argument. my argument is that ai art provably uses images from real people who didn't consent to have those images used. some of those people were hurt during the making of those images. sometimes ai art recreates those images verbatim.

most people would say that making and sharing pornography of people who are not into it is uncool.

hence, you should not want to watch ai art.

i'm not claiming authority here, or even a functional pp, just saying that there's a lot of porn, and some of it is more ethical than others. and even perverts should care about ethics.

or don't i guess. if you want to have a weirdly aggressive fap to resist my authoritay or something I can't stop you.

"most people would say that making and sharing pornography of people who are not into it is uncool.

hence, you should not want to watch ai art."

Question for you:

Most people think me killing Bambi's parents every year to put food on my table is uncool too.
Is your implication that I should be ashamed, and therefor discontinue hunting and go hungry, because of random strangers feelings?

 

[User_62433]

"most people would say that making and sharing pornography of people who are not into it is uncool.

hence, you should not want to watch ai art."

Question for you:

Most people think me killing Bambi's parents every year to put food on my table is uncool too.
Is your implication that I should be ashamed, and therefor discontinue hunting and go hungry, because of random strangers feelings?

valid point, morality is not really decided by vote.

that said, do you feel I need to justify the right to consent? like, if I say that people have a natural right to their bodies, and a natural right to participate or not participate in other people's sexuality, would you then ask for a rationale for why that is? or, if I said that it hurts people's feelings when their image is pornified and then spread around the internet, would that be good enough? on some level, all morality needs a basis. usually, "don't harm people unnecessarily", "respect others", and "rights over body and property' are kind of a shared bit that let's people not be dicks to each other.

basically, I'm willing to commit to the statement "making and sharing pornography of people who are not into it is uncool" is self-evident unless you get real into mental twister.

or just golden rule it you know

 

[User_91893]

Why do I feel like this post is sponsered by some MPAA and RIAA conglomerate.

 

[4pleb]

Look, I get this a free-speech forward type of forum. And I get that a cartoon of my little pony doing the nasty with solid snake is probably ethically safer than real porn. So what I'm going to say isn't gonna be super popular.

But AI art is bad.

a) It is produced using images of non-consenting people
b) it is known that ai training sets include images from real life dark content (not fake stuff, actual dark shit floating collected from seedy ass corners of the web by the auto-crawler)
c) it is known that ai will occasionally get lazy and reproduce images from its dataset, basically exactly as they are

Now I get that the people here are masturbation addicts whose brains have been ruined by porn, probably with extra dark fetishes that will never see the light of day. But I like to think that most of us don't want to hurt real people, and more or less are respectable human beings outside of our brains being soaked in hentai for too long.

So respectfully, don't look at ai porn. And if it were up to me, it wouldn't be a thing, especially for known celebrities and darker content.

a) unless it bears strong resemblance to real people or copyrighted work, if nobody is suing then why bitch about it
b) as long as what gets used fits the rating of the game
c) as long as theres some form of quality control/edit to ensure nothing cursed comes out

 

[larlarlar]

AI art is often uncanny, but i think it serves as a great tool to get inspiration or get you out of a slump.

 

[sundogsun]

soooo:
A: not always, it pulls information for the prompts you ask it. then compiles it in the best way it can be interpreted on a fictious model. Hense why hands mouths, eyes, feet are normally all messed up
B: only if told to. it doesnt use it as a database. unless thats where the data base is stored and pulling from.
C: again, only if prompts are used, its why you can use the same prompts can get the same image but in a different pose/ form. its like RAM, of course it will pull form the data base it just used to quicken the generation.
Not everyone here is porn addiict, thats not 100% true. that is your own interpretation of the idea.
There are a few bad cookies out there that do intend to do harm. If we do suspect those on this site, we can set measures to ensure everyone is safe including the individual in question.
This is why much of at least Federal law just says to make it illegal because it is getting harder to interpret real/fake images made with AI.
Just be safe out there, and help others where it is needed and asked for Good luck in the grind to 750

Xonia, your words were gold, but now I'm a bit fuzzy due to your font color. Why that color?
It's like trying to decode a secret message in invisible ink!

 

[jbk304]

Hmm I think you missed some of the points.

"a) It is produced using images of non-consenting people"
- vast majority ai is trained on public images. So photos that are already out on the public internet. You should read Stefan Wolfram's how chatGPT works as it also lists how ai art works.

"b) it is known that ai training sets include images from real life dark content (not fake stuff, actual dark shit floating collected from seedy ass corners of the web by the auto-crawler)"
- Core AI sets don't have much dark content unless the spider they use was able to find it. Most main AI do use selected sites for content. Where this is different is the open source or questionable Ai creators (your no-name smart phone app to nudify somebody). Open source allows anybody to train their own data set and merge it in. And if you can train it on anything you want well yup R34.

"c) it is known that ai will occasionally get lazy and reproduce images from its dataset, basically exactly as they are"
- I've used it quite a bit and I can't think of one time it's done that unless you build a very complex prompt to force it to rebuild something it's seen in detail.

 

[falseside]

They look so off anyways. They might reduce the time between game updates in the future but we are not there yet.

 

[Earlybird]

Draw nude Taylor Swift:

You must be registered to see attachments

Make AI Nude Taylor Swift:

You must be registered to see attachments

 

[Wannabe]

As AI art (assuming we can properly call it art) continues to develop, the animation it can create will grow in quality to the point where you won't be able to tell the difference between that and photography or film. I don't see any generally unethical or dangerous aspect to that when used for pornography as long as it's being enjoyed by adults, except that it certainly will have an impact on the porn industry. When it comes to someone gaining financially from reproducing some real person's image without their consent, that's a matter for lawmakers, lawyers, and the courts. What's truly dangerous about it is the potential for misuse for other purposes besides porn, such as politics and conspiracy. For example, if you can't be sure whether or not your President is a real person or an AI-generated animation controlled by special interests, you've got a real problem.

 

[blldr]

"it is known that ai will occasionally get lazy and reproduce images from its dataset, basically exactly as they are"

can someone provide even a single example of this happening?

 

[grim019]

Hmm I think you missed some of the points.

"a) It is produced using images of non-consenting people"
- vast majority ai is trained on public images. So photos that are already out on the public internet. You should read Stefan Wolfram's how chatGPT works as it also lists how ai art works.

"b) it is known that ai training sets include images from real life dark content (not fake stuff, actual dark shit floating collected from seedy ass corners of the web by the auto-crawler)"
- Core AI sets don't have much dark content unless the spider they use was able to find it. Most main AI do use selected sites for content. Where this is different is the open source or questionable Ai creators (your no-name smart phone app to nudify somebody). Open source allows anybody to train their own data set and merge it in. And if you can train it on anything you want well yup R34.

"c) it is known that ai will occasionally get lazy and reproduce images from its dataset, basically exactly as they are"
- I've used it quite a bit and I can't think of one time it's done that unless you build a very complex prompt to force it to rebuild something it's seen in detail.

All these are good points. I think it shows that they may be overreacting a bit.

 

[User_111574]

1. It is folly and absolutely unproductive to fight this phenomenon. Because the boys from the boards of transnational corporations make good money on AI. And they will not part with their potential profits.
2. Using images of real or existing people is immoral - here I agree 100 percent.
3. Hentai does not interest me, I really dislike Japanese graphics.
4. In the initial post there is a clear religious component. I am an atheist. And about the salvation of my “soul” I did not ask and do not ask anyone.

 

[KantamaroSan]

AI CG Art isn't ethical
But AI art is bad.

a) It is produced using images of non-consenting people
b) it is known that ai training sets include images from real life dark content (not fake stuff, actual dark shit floating collected from seedy ass corners of the web by the auto-crawler)
c) it is known that ai will occasionally get lazy and reproduce images from its dataset, basically exactly as they are

Deconstructed:
- "not ethical" : you'd have to define ethical, there's probably a whole philosophical branch dedicated to trying to define what is ethical, whether it be absolute ethics, natural ethics, personal ethics, ...
- "bad" : unspecified, is this a continuation of the not ethical train of thought, or something else? Surely, objectively, if some people find joy in it, you could consider that in some cases it's "good" (unspecified)?

a) not necessarily, that statement is highly dependent on the AI (mostly the model) you are using, although you're probably right in a generalized sense
On generating images without consent... if nobody knows about them being generated, if nobody watches them, it's not harming anyone I'd say. It's worth to point that out. Then progressively, one person watches them, is the non-consenting person harmed? Etc... At what point is the non-consenter harmed, how, and how much? I very much agree that non-consenters can be harmed by AI, I would just like to understand myself where the defining line is. It's not an easy topic I think.
b) depends on the AI (again, mostly the model), also probably dubious statement when generalized, "it is known" is not a good reference, feel free to add a secondary source to affirmate this statement.
I say it's dubious to generalize this statement, because for training an AI model, someone has to actually go through the images and tag them appropriately and stuff, as far as I know. In general, because I consider most people 'socially-acceptable-ethical', "dark content" would be picked out, isolated and rejected
c) Aside from the "it is known" argument... how does reproducing an image make AI "bad" or "unethical" ? Did you know that technically speaking, for you to see images from the internet, your computer is reproducing them all the time? Is it bad to look at a reproduction of the Mona Lisa if you're unable to visit the Louvre? Is it bad to look through a book about an artist, surely containing pictures of their work?

I know I too am making these statements without referencing a source. I just hope I make enough of an argument to make you consider that ethical dilemmas are rarely black and white...

 

[bombten]

Well, the problem here with these arguments is that think about how all other art is formed.
Artificial Intelligence art is just an endevour to mimic what human beings have done for ages.
How do you think all the violent, disgusting, gruesome and horrible art in books, graphical novels, movies and games have been done for several milennia?
By a human being taking experiences (that they have either experience themselves, heard of someone else experience, or read about in newspapers or news on tv) and then put them together in their head to make a new mix of it and make it into their own art.
....JUST LIKE AI DOES!!!!

Can we really declare ownership of what happens in the world, even if we are involved?
Can someone say "Hey! You can't make a movie about the bombing of Pear Harbor, because I was there and it was a traumatizing event, I lost so many of my friends there!"
If someone attacks you, is it *your event*?
Do you own it?
What about the attacker?
Can they claim ownership?
I say if something happens in this world, it is history, and it belongs to noone.
Anyone can write what they want of it, lie as much as they want (which people do all the time), which sucks, but I still would claim you can't hold ownership of it.

 

[Montimer]

See, you are completely right that it isn't ethical. Problem is that lot of the advancements in science and technology also had their trials and errors, ethical dilemmas or tragedies.
Of fucking course it isn't ethical. Tech companies have started scraping masses of written text, messages, images etc that are publicly available and putting them into an AI model.
Where people take these models and create specifically trained AIs with a specific style.
It isn't going to stop. If anything, Big Tech is trying to encourage it. Why? It's a major breakthrough. It's fascinating... and most importantly - it's freely accessible, lazy and relatively easy to use. That alone draws people. Your average Joe doesn't care if style is taken from an artist. He cares about generating a busty blonde with huge tits.
It's a tool. Up to you how to use it. You could use some less than savory images for it... or you could use your own drawings to make AI Image generator for your own art.

Does it hurt artists? Certainly. Mostly because it eliminates the need for people to search for specific artists when they can do it themselves with trial and error.
However at the same time, no matter how good an AI model it is unable to capture the "human touch" and details that artists do.
On top of all that, while the internet is oversaturated with AI content, it makes it easier for artists to differentiate themselves. Majority of artists are morons when it comes to advertising. Sorry. I've known many artists, I've supported even more. Their idea of promotion is putting it on twitter and calling it a day.

I don't think that AI generated images overall are an issue when everything there is fake. I personally don't mind AI as long as it doesn't depict ACTUAL REAL PEOPLE. Don't particularly care if the image generated was used to recreate a new person. That person doesn't exist.
Issue becomes when people train AIs to mimic real people, especially celebrities. Which then makes the celebrities notice it and negatively impact the technology as people use it to humiliate them... or put them in sexual encounters.

This technology is progressing at an alarming late. Every single year it's going to get better. There is no stopping it unless there's laws against it.
Even then, people will just retreat to secluded corners of the internet and do their thing. Worst thing you can do is to tell someone "dont do this"
It's going to push them to do more.