Hacker News Reader

Comment by joker_minmax | Hacker News Reader

Everyone can look at that and know it's a painting, not a real image. Most "photorealisfic" portraiture still looks visibly like a painting. Paintings can't move like a video can. The issue is misleading people with believable imagery. The issue is defamation. Apply it to yourself and your own image instead of Cosby.

View on HN

So once my paints get “too” good (I.e. indistinguishable from a photo) then all of a sudden my benign art has transformed into a violation of the law? Or is now “problematic”?

Btw that’s how photorealistic paintings already are.

Actually, once your painting gets to any amount of recognizability at all for someone's image/likeness, it is a violation. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the internet has made us forget that these laws already exist because nobody has been enforcing them.

So you’re saying there are drawings I can make that somehow “violations”? Think about that. There’s a drawing I’m not allowed to draw. Like WFT. Talk about dystopian.

You are not allowed to draw children in sexual acts in many places in the world. In some countries, you cant even draw god. These artistic limits have existed for a long time, but normally people don't rub up against them.

These laws already exist right now. Here is an example. You can't make a painting at the dimension of a dollar bill that's so authentic that looks exactly like a dollar bill. That's called counterfeiting and it's illegal on every country in the world I believe (for their own money of course).

That's an entirely different thing from being prohibited from making any likeness of George Washington (even if the image shows him having sex with Martha, Thomas Jefferson, or the entire Continental Congress).

No, it is not. Ones image and likeness is only protected in very narrow scenarios: namely advertisements. You can go paint politicians or celebrities all you want, as long as you're not having them endorse products or otherwise advertising things.

This can be dealt with mandatory disclosures enforced by law that the imagery is AI generated and not real. But this solution will not satisfy you, will it?

So now you want the law further involved in pornography? Will fine print save someone's reputation like that? If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules.

> If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules.

Yes... and by making laws around the distribution or labeling of this content they can be sued. The argument that criminals don't follow the law, so there should be no law is really weak. I dont really see a problem with requiring AI porn of non consensual 3rd parties to be labeled as such at a MINIMUM. Some amount of regulation could be required and shouldn't be dismissed outright given the societal harm that could be caused.

I could see artists voluntarily mentioning AI art in their captions. And on the forums I frequent, that's the current solution to keep the controversy down.

I don't think defamation is the issue. The idea behind defamation is that it's harmful to somebody if people believe bad things about them. People still feel harmed by these images even if absolutely nobody believes that they're real.

I think that right there is the crux of the problem. To think yourself harmed because of what some strange is looking at in their own home is quite a bit odd.

If I knew that someone had a naked painting of me on their wall and they were masterbating to it right now, should I really be bothered by that? Am I supposed to care what is in the head of a stranger?

Maybe, maybe not. If there are a bunch of strangers out there trading around the pictures and discussing, in graphic terms, what they'd like to do to you, maybe more likely. Especially when most of them seem to have no particular interest in thinking about what you might or might not be into.

... and especially if some of them are actively stalking you in real life, or if you tend to get stalked in real life in general. Which roughly 100 percent of major actresses do, and a nontrivial percentage of just random women. Creepy stalkers or worse are going to be heavily overrepresented among the people who produce or consume this material... and women who have actually been stalked are going to be overrepresented among the subjects.

Oh, and by the way, if you were raised female, you're also pretty likely to have had experiences where (1) a bunch of people treated you as valuable only for your sexual potential, and acted disappointed or even angry if you did anything that reduced their ability to fantasize about how they wanted to use that potential; and (2) another bunch of people told you you were a worthless slut if you did anything sexual they didn't like. That can affect a person.

I'm actually not ready to ban things, but I am not going to delude myself that there's no downside to that.

Exactly, the issue is that you become a product in the eyes of others, and now realistic images of that product are clicks away. And it alters how you interface with the people around you and how they interface with you.

If you find a naked painting of yourself and tissues in the floor in your friend's house please report back on exactly how that made you feel and exactly how you decided to proceed with the friendship. I am very interested to hear the results. For most people I think they would be disturbed to find this, and it's easy to theorize how you wouldn't be bothered until something like this actually happens to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com