Ai can combine two things. It can train on completely normal pictures of children, and it can train on completely normal adult porn, and then it can put those together.
This is the same reason it can do something like Godzilla with Sailor Moon’s hair, not because it trained on images of Godzilla with Sailor Moon’s hair, but because it can combine those two separate things.
Only the real things are actual humans who have likely not consented to ever being in this database at all let alone having parts of their likeness being used for this horrific shit. There is no moral argument for this garbage:
Technically speaking, if you post images of your child on social media, you have consented. If you never uploaded an image of your child online, you never need to worry.
Social media has been around a long time. It is not reasonable to expect people to think of technology they can’t imagine even existing ten years in the future when “consenting” to use a platform. Legally you are correct. Morally this is obviously terrible. Everything about how terms and conditions are communicated is designed to take advantage of people who won’t or are unable to parse its meaning. Consent needs to be informed.
Even when consent is informed it can still be fucky. Do you think I want to consent to an arbitration agreement with my employer or a social media platform? Fuck no, but I want a job and interaction so I go where the money/people are. I can’t hunt around for a place that will hire me and also doesn’t have arbitration.
Consent at the barrel of a gun, No matter how well informed, is no consent at all.
Ai can combine two things. It can train on completely normal pictures of children, and it can train on completely normal adult porn, and then it can put those together.
This is the same reason it can do something like Godzilla with Sailor Moon’s hair, not because it trained on images of Godzilla with Sailor Moon’s hair, but because it can combine those two separate things.
Fair enough. I still think it shouldn’t be allowed though.
Why? Not pressing but just curious what the logic is
Only the real things are actual humans who have likely not consented to ever being in this database at all let alone having parts of their likeness being used for this horrific shit. There is no moral argument for this garbage:
Technically speaking, if you post images of your child on social media, you have consented. If you never uploaded an image of your child online, you never need to worry.
Social media has been around a long time. It is not reasonable to expect people to think of technology they can’t imagine even existing ten years in the future when “consenting” to use a platform. Legally you are correct. Morally this is obviously terrible. Everything about how terms and conditions are communicated is designed to take advantage of people who won’t or are unable to parse its meaning. Consent needs to be informed.
Even when consent is informed it can still be fucky. Do you think I want to consent to an arbitration agreement with my employer or a social media platform? Fuck no, but I want a job and interaction so I go where the money/people are. I can’t hunt around for a place that will hire me and also doesn’t have arbitration.
Consent at the barrel of a gun, No matter how well informed, is no consent at all.
In many countries mandatory arbitration agreements in a B2C context are invalid. They have no legal power.
Ngl this feels like arguing semantics.
This is a great point. Manufactured consent and all.