> The answer is a better quality than if they are trying to figure out stable diffusion.
Prove it. Give some newbie Photoshop and a week of time, and show me how well they can Photoshop the face of a particular person (say Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture) onto some porn.
I've read many of your replies, and while I /think/ I understand your point, I am not sure what you're proposing.
Is this a reasonable summary?
> AI = easy, so it should be regulated. It has passed the "threshold of simplicity" (and realism) where new legislation should be enacted.
> Photoshop = harder, so it should not be legislated.
If so, what happens when Photoshop releases a "copy/paste a face" feature (a desired general photo editing capability) that uses GenAI to merge background, skin tone, lighting, etc.? That could easily be a beginner-level feature (ctrl-c/ctrl-v with auto-segmentation) and be used to create porn.
Are you proposing that the feature be regulated because it's become too easy? That artificial barriers of difficulty be implemented?
Literally all some kid has to do is use the Photoshop magic wand feature to copy someone's face and post it on another image.
High schoolers don't care about the difference. They'll harass the target just as much if those kinds of pictures show up around school.
And that would only take a couple minutes to produce.
High schoolers don't need a 3000$ gaming computer, and the skills of figuring out how a GitHub repo and install process works to harass their fellow students.
You are entirely confused about what the problem is here. Slight differences in technology are not the cause of the problem of sexual harassment.
> Literally all some kid has to do is use the Photoshop magic wand feature to copy someone's face and post it on another image.
Do it, show me the results.
> High schoolers don't care about the difference. They'll harass the target just as much if those kinds of pictures show up around school.
You're moving the goalposts. I don't care if highschoolers will run with obvious, low quality crap. In fact, throughout this whole conversation, I didn't have highschoolers harassing each other on my mind at all. I was thinking about the more general problem, which includes things like harassing exes and potential employers coming across pictures during a job search.
> I don't care if highschoolers will run with obvious, low quality crap.
> which includes things like harassing exes and potential employers
You are completely missing the point. Also, your repeated requests that I engage in sexual harassment is weird.
The damage of sexually harassing messages being sent to your friends and families can be just as damaging regardless of whatever small quality issues that you think exist.
You are confused about what the issue is. People are still significantly harmed via this harassment, even if there are quality issues. The "accuracy" isn't the determining factor here. Instead, it is the sexually harassment messages and images being spammed to people surrounding the victim.
The answer is a better quality than if they are trying to figure out stable diffusion.