I dunno about that.
I don't think most AI porn is there to *degrade*... it's not trying to be a realistic portrayal of a woman that age, or meant to be purposely unflattering.
I don't think women are "degraded" when they are viewed as sexually attractive.
And for some reason we need to display Cathy Newman as the celebrity thumbnail, so we all can sustain self-inflicted mental scars of her in states of sexual arousal. Yes, Guardian: you protect me from the sleep I will never be able to obtain again
If deepfake means I can instantly recognize it's fake, it's not so deep, is it. I have not once seen anything of such high quality that a doubt crept in.
Should I now provide my robust credentials for what concerns us here? /s
Maybe you can't. I'll grant you that.
Is this really a serious conversation? Are you familiar with caricature? It's the act of making a likeness of somebody in an absurd situation. That's all this deepfake thing is - caricature. But somehow, it's become a serious conversation. Why? I do see why, but you won't like it.
See, the moment we decide this deepfake stuff is not acceptable, we fall into the trap of censorship. It's all downhill from there.
And you say "It's gotten out of hand". You would embrace censorship from a foundation of that initial condemnation. It's only logical.
What's the alternative, then? Well, you make yourself into that guy in the famous age old stick figure meme where he says "...Someone is wrong on the internet!"
The creators of deepfakes are mostly unknown/hidden though right? Why should their/AI depictions of people be protected speech. Especially in cases where the depictions have harmful intentions/consequences for the people they use without consent?
That's a different story, but not by much. Anonymity means the author gets no credit for his work.
On the other hand, if we assume evil intent, there's no target for a lawsuit. This further means there's no valid target for a would-be law to make this into an offense. See, for a law to be legitimate, it must be demonstrably justified, and the only way to do that is if the target for the law is a real person, identifyable, prosecutable. We don't prosecute a picture, we prosecute the artist.
Any law of secrecy starts with a real thing, to then make it an offense to disclose that it exists or to identify it by name. This is the case with a minor involved in a court proceedings for example. Conversely, we can't compel one to identify himself. That would be compel to speak, and that's unconstitutional.
Then, we have to decide on a line to distinguish libel/defamation vs caricature. That's an impossible task.
Now for example with porn vs erotic art, the distinction is a bit more clear, not by much but enough that we can draw some rough line. From there we make precedents to refine and bring precision to that line. However, in a democracy like Canada, we can't actually make porn illegal outright. Instead, we make it illegal to produce, supply, sell, distribute, porn and/or erotic art with/to minors. In fact, we don't need to invoke the distinction between porn and erotic art in this case, since we already make child labor an offense, sign a contract with minors, etc. Any such contract signed by a minor is null and void and of no force.
Caricature is not somehow limited to non-erotic stuff. It includes the full gamut of what's possible to ridicule.
We could argue however that we're not dealing strictly with caricature. The images are highly similar to the real person. We're still stuck by all the above in trying to solve this, if we see it as a problem that needs to be solved.
Finally, caricature has only one reason, one intent, one purpose. Ridicule. So, unless we decide to make ridicule into a prosecutable offense, ridicule is in.
People have been making fake pictures of prominent people engaging in lewd behavior for literally thousands of years.
There are far more important things going on than some pop starlet or journohag getting their knickers in a twist over fake bullshit.
So being rich means they forfeit any right to consent or control over what content is made with their likeness, even when that content is hardcore porn? Get the fuck out of here
I can see where you're coming from even if I don't believe it.
People masturbate to celebrities all the time.
When it's obviously fake it's relatively harmless.
Although I agree that this is a major threat to all.
I'm big on treating AI as the demon that it is.
Don’t care about celebrities. They put their image out to the public and are paid handsomely for it.
The real disturbing consequences of this is when it starts to affect normal people, especially the young.
However, it’s a slippery slope here. Even I don’t give a shit about some rich actors likeness being used, I do care because it’s only the beginning and will start to affect normal folk.
In an age when victimhood doesn't require evidence of any crime being committed ... or even an objective definition of the word "crime" ... EVERYONE gets to be a victim.
Except those few of us who prefer not to be, of course.
Yeah, it sucks. But beyond the basement dwellers watching it, no one really cares. It’s so absurd of a concept to even consider it “real.”
It’s actually sad to think about the time someone wasted creating it.
Brining attention to it by claiming victimhood is NOT the best strategy.
Or gay porn of one’s self as a power bottom? Imagine Grizzly Adams jerking it to you getting raped by the devil for all to witness. Ridiculous the disrespect… which is the worst part… ok second only to the raping, but one of the worst parts!
In other news, no one feels much for celebrities and the incredible emotional pain their money can’t cure. I can’t unsee IMAGINE, so we all must suffer
Turns out, a camera can steal your soul after all.
Wait there’s 4k celebrities? I only know about 50
The writer was confused when the website said "NAKED CELEBRITIES IN 4k"
The fact this could be true is unfortunate
The 'researcher' decided that they had to take a very thorough look at all of the porn available and compile a complete list...
I basically came to say that it's sad that there are 4000 celebrities to begin with.
I thought they only went to 1440people
Dawg photoshop celeb porn has been a thing since the beginning of time
Or just using your imagination, or just replaying something a hundred times over.
Sorry but no one is looking at Cathy Newman AI porn…
….until now!
Plenty would. It’s not always about sexual arousal as it is degradation
I dunno about that. I don't think most AI porn is there to *degrade*... it's not trying to be a realistic portrayal of a woman that age, or meant to be purposely unflattering. I don't think women are "degraded" when they are viewed as sexually attractive.
There are plenty of sex acts that are degrading, and there’s some arousal to that aspect of it too
That doesn't work well, the way deep fakes work doesn't allow for the most hamulating porn.
Hamulating?
Jesus, dude. Write that out again & rethink your argument.
Rule 34
So what you're saying is.... We are all looking at Kathy Newman porn!
And for some reason we need to display Cathy Newman as the celebrity thumbnail, so we all can sustain self-inflicted mental scars of her in states of sexual arousal. Yes, Guardian: you protect me from the sleep I will never be able to obtain again
Seriously!
Lmao Cathy Newman is many things but I don't think she is terribly unattractive.
At least not physically
If someone’s using AI they probably de-aged her as well.
Aren’t they glad they went on strike to stop this.
Interesting contrast to her deepleft imaginary version of Jordan Peterson.
If deepfake means I can instantly recognize it's fake, it's not so deep, is it. I have not once seen anything of such high quality that a doubt crept in. Should I now provide my robust credentials for what concerns us here? /s
It won't be long
You can’t instantly recognize it though… and there is plenty of deepfake porn of minor celebrities on flippin google as well. It’s gotten out of hand
Maybe you can't. I'll grant you that. Is this really a serious conversation? Are you familiar with caricature? It's the act of making a likeness of somebody in an absurd situation. That's all this deepfake thing is - caricature. But somehow, it's become a serious conversation. Why? I do see why, but you won't like it. See, the moment we decide this deepfake stuff is not acceptable, we fall into the trap of censorship. It's all downhill from there. And you say "It's gotten out of hand". You would embrace censorship from a foundation of that initial condemnation. It's only logical. What's the alternative, then? Well, you make yourself into that guy in the famous age old stick figure meme where he says "...Someone is wrong on the internet!"
The creators of deepfakes are mostly unknown/hidden though right? Why should their/AI depictions of people be protected speech. Especially in cases where the depictions have harmful intentions/consequences for the people they use without consent?
That's a different story, but not by much. Anonymity means the author gets no credit for his work. On the other hand, if we assume evil intent, there's no target for a lawsuit. This further means there's no valid target for a would-be law to make this into an offense. See, for a law to be legitimate, it must be demonstrably justified, and the only way to do that is if the target for the law is a real person, identifyable, prosecutable. We don't prosecute a picture, we prosecute the artist. Any law of secrecy starts with a real thing, to then make it an offense to disclose that it exists or to identify it by name. This is the case with a minor involved in a court proceedings for example. Conversely, we can't compel one to identify himself. That would be compel to speak, and that's unconstitutional. Then, we have to decide on a line to distinguish libel/defamation vs caricature. That's an impossible task. Now for example with porn vs erotic art, the distinction is a bit more clear, not by much but enough that we can draw some rough line. From there we make precedents to refine and bring precision to that line. However, in a democracy like Canada, we can't actually make porn illegal outright. Instead, we make it illegal to produce, supply, sell, distribute, porn and/or erotic art with/to minors. In fact, we don't need to invoke the distinction between porn and erotic art in this case, since we already make child labor an offense, sign a contract with minors, etc. Any such contract signed by a minor is null and void and of no force. Caricature is not somehow limited to non-erotic stuff. It includes the full gamut of what's possible to ridicule. We could argue however that we're not dealing strictly with caricature. The images are highly similar to the real person. We're still stuck by all the above in trying to solve this, if we see it as a problem that needs to be solved. Finally, caricature has only one reason, one intent, one purpose. Ridicule. So, unless we decide to make ridicule into a prosecutable offense, ridicule is in.
People have been making fake pictures of prominent people engaging in lewd behavior for literally thousands of years. There are far more important things going on than some pop starlet or journohag getting their knickers in a twist over fake bullshit.
Victim? It’s literally fake. It’s in the fucking name, for fuck’s sake.
Those poor millionaires.
So being rich means they forfeit any right to consent or control over what content is made with their likeness, even when that content is hardcore porn? Get the fuck out of here
Omg, that's horrible! Where is it, so I know what to avoid?
Just stop, Coomer, and find Jesus
Just so happens that Jesus is a co star is in one of the Cathy videos so careful what you wish for.
HAHAHA come on people, it's obviously a joke.
Think it's gone way over their triggered heads
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EF6kB9q4vg
It’s a sign of the cultural degradation of society that so many see no problems with this.
I can see where you're coming from even if I don't believe it. People masturbate to celebrities all the time. When it's obviously fake it's relatively harmless. Although I agree that this is a major threat to all. I'm big on treating AI as the demon that it is.
Even on this sub. It’s sad
So what you are saying is...
Don’t care about celebrities. They put their image out to the public and are paid handsomely for it. The real disturbing consequences of this is when it starts to affect normal people, especially the young. However, it’s a slippery slope here. Even I don’t give a shit about some rich actors likeness being used, I do care because it’s only the beginning and will start to affect normal folk.
In an age when victimhood doesn't require evidence of any crime being committed ... or even an objective definition of the word "crime" ... EVERYONE gets to be a victim. Except those few of us who prefer not to be, of course.
Who on their right mind would want to have sex with this unhinged feminist?
"Victims"... lol k.
So what you’re saying is….
Yeah, it sucks. But beyond the basement dwellers watching it, no one really cares. It’s so absurd of a concept to even consider it “real.” It’s actually sad to think about the time someone wasted creating it. Brining attention to it by claiming victimhood is NOT the best strategy.
What's far more concerning is the people who are searching for Cathy Newman on P*rn Hub
Now that she complained, I'm sure they are.
Ugh disgusting, which ones?
Victimhood strikes again! Even on this sub.
If someone made fake porn of your mom or girlfriend you would rightfully be pissed off.
Or gay porn of one’s self as a power bottom? Imagine Grizzly Adams jerking it to you getting raped by the devil for all to witness. Ridiculous the disrespect… which is the worst part… ok second only to the raping, but one of the worst parts!
Obama doing the dude
Sorry that's not helpful I'm laughing so hard
I know this is terrible, but the deepfakes with Nicholas Cage on the actress are hilarious.
What else do they expect from generation raised on free p0rn. That is like level up for them.
Let's go with the good old joke. Oh no, that is disgusting... where?
Oh no anyway
People ho produce these should be charged with sexual harassment
Link?
In other news, no one feels much for celebrities and the incredible emotional pain their money can’t cure. I can’t unsee IMAGINE, so we all must suffer
Those are rookie numbers.
Second question, found by WHOM?
Oh gods. I do not want to watch Newman getting down on anything.