It seems like a natural continuation of being able to Photoshop people's faces onto strangers in compromising situations. Is this not just a better version of that?
Seems like fighting it would only make fake porn more valuable and dangerous.
This is where I'm at as well, where it differs IMO is: the throughput/variety and the zero barrier to entry—even the most gifted 'shopper could only work so fast and with whatever available media. It would be possible to deconstruct the image to know face from X, background from Y. And still, virtually all photoshops have "tells" — they're "off" with regard to lighting, perspective, etc. and it varies from artist to artist.
Tools exist that can tell which pixels were "disturbed" or otherwise inconsistent with the rest of the image. Being able to spot a Photoshopped image is an internet joke and true life skill—"it's a 'shop. I can tell by the pixels and from years of seeing 'shops"
AI-generated images removes the maker's mark, and despite hilariously struggling with anatomy, seldom gets lighting or coloring "wrong" in a way that a human might.
Same thing with voice, we're almost at the point where anybody can spoof anybody else's voice with barely any effort. We're going to get used to a world where voices mean nothing.
Eg, if having a bunch of photos of a person is tantamount to having a bunch of porn out there of them, maybe people will become much more protective of their image.
Maybe they will react to being photographed in public in the same way they'd react today if someone tried to stick a camera under their skirt.
Maybe public figures will all just accept that this is going to happen to them, but it doesn't follow that everyone else would accept it. Maybe photos, any kind of normal photo, will be seen as a sensitive personal item you'd never willingly release to the public.
It sounds strange to say people will no longer allow photos of themselves, but is that really more strange than saying everyone will accept hyper realistic AI porn of everyone is floating around?