I'm not sure if you noticed, but people who write for a living have suddenly started writing quite a lot about how technology that can write and generate media are bad.

It's because a person can crank out a deep fake in 3 hours, and a crappy one in one. It never cropped up because... well lets be real it was a couple of weirdos that were doing it, unless it bubbles up from the dark corners of the internet you risk the Streisand effect by bringing attention to it.

AI can crank out 40 in a minute. 7200 in three hours. That's an entirely different beast. The sheer mass and volume ramps up the odds of any image bubbling up from the dark corners of the web falling into the limelight and now this problem that wasn't big enough to merit thought is rearing up it's ugly head right in front of us.

You can generate unique pictures of Taylor Swift faster than even Taylor swift can generate pictures of Taylor Swift. Within one hour of Taylor swift being seen with a man (and you have enough images of the man) you can create a dozen images of her on a date with that man and attempt to sell them to paparazzi.

The problem is volume. Just like how email made everyone connected and allowed the Nigerian Prince scandal to occur.

I don't think many have gone viral on social media before or took less than 5 minutes to create. My uneducated guess is that previously this stuff would be in some niche forum in the recesses of the internet

I can see why people are upset, I can agree that distribution of these images can be an issue, but this has the same energy of "I am mad that a certain picture of me is on the internet, I demand that they take it down." Sorry, that's not going to happen any time soon.

It's now massively accessible and realistic. Yes, it's a problem.

You could be honest and acknowledge that there is a massive difference in time investment and skill required between the old way of creating fake porn of unconsenting people and the new way.

Hahaha, that's glorious!

Like back at the time they had Usenet groups, rotten.com and a long list of other sites to post fake porn and other discutible content.

Not that I am saying that is something right, just that is nothing new.

For what? She's a public figure who does photo shoots. That's fair game buddy.

Alright, I'll bite. To start, this is a real person that we are talking about. A real person who did not consent. Does that mean anything to you? The fact that there is a very real person that exists in very real life that has had this happen to them?

Otherwise, I agree. Nothing wrong with the male libido.

So, this line of thought is not going to get AI fakes permitted, it's going to get rule 34 banned.

We've been censoring sex shit for a long ass time, in case you haven't noticed. The recent trend of information freedom is not going to defeat that old religious puritanical bs, and people's wishes for privacy on top of it.

Trump would shut that shit down fast. Conservatives want people reproducing, not masturbating, and he has christian supporters to keep in line, who do not like porn.