God I hope it loses its meaning. Our society has such a fucking bizarre and toxic relationship with sexuality. Sexualizing other people, themselves, even simple nudity scares the shit out of people. So many people seem to have such strong emotions over a facet of every day life that's about as widespread and normal a human experience as having to take a shit. I hope the ability to turn anybody naked with the press of a button forces people to chill the fuck out.
Under this argument wouldn't any type of paid labor be coercive? Hell, it seems like any interpersonal activity in a capitalistic society be considered coercive since every activity is just X number of steps away from 'survival'.
I mean, you say that like it isn't a well-worn meme that people loathe the companies they work for but have no real choice to get different jobs. I know dozens of people who work for companies they believe are actively worsening the world because they literally don't have a choice. If they quit, they would die. And that's just like, the basic money problem. If you happen to be in the United States, your ability to access healthcare is also extremely tightly tied to your employment status.
Would anyone at all work food service if the alternative wasn't starvation? I don't know a single person who's worked that sort of job that would do it if they didn't need to to eat, not because it's antithetical to the human experience to serve food, but because it pays like garbage and the customers treat you like shit.
Not to be that guy but why is a fictional depiction of porn different than a fictional depiction of anything else? What makes sex so special?
If I made fake porn of Donald Trump under your explanation, that is considered sexual assault, even if I tell everyone it is fake. Why?
Would making a parody video of Donald Trump getting beaten up also be considered assault?
Would making a parody video of the pope denouncing god be considered the same?
I'm sure all three are genuinely offensive. I'm just trying to understand, maybe its because I have a background growing up in a clothing optional community and being in poly relationships so I just have a much less taboo view of sexuality. But how can a fake video of someone that everyone knows is fake by itself be assault? It sounds like you just want it to be illegal because it offends you.
Instead of making it illegal to generate AI porn of celebrities, maybe we should examine our culture and why we see sexualization as so threatening. Why do we freak out if our kids see two people having sex but don't blink an eye when they see violence in movies?
Most countries have exemptions around satire. If you did not you could not do things like puppet shows for example. Hence you could distribute any AI generated image if it looks like satire. With porn however you have no such exemptions, as such the copyright law applies and you cannot simply duplicate somebodies likeness without their explicit approval.
> the copyright law applies and you cannot simply duplicate somebodies likeness
In many countries (like the US), someone's likeness is not covered by copyright law in the first place (in some US jurisdictions, publicity/personality rights may apply, but these are state-law rights and more likely to apply to people, e.g. celebrities, with already-commercialized identities, and against commercial use; they are much more limited than copyright rights.)
For porn/nudes specifically, revenge porn laws (which mostly are aimed at unauthorized release of actual imagery of the targeted kind, but aren’t always narrowly crafted) might also apply.
> If I made fake porn of Donald Trump under your explanation, that is considered sexual assault, even if I tell everyone it is fake. Why?
Because, as I said, you are using someone's likeness to make sexually explicit material without their consent. What are you not understanding here?
> Would making a parody video of Donald Trump getting beaten up also be considered assault?
No.
> Would making a parody video of the pope denouncing god be considered the same?
No.
> I'm sure all three are genuinely offensive.
It being offensive isn't the problem.
> I'm just trying to understand, maybe its because I have a background growing up in a clothing optional community and being in poly relationships so I just have a much less taboo view of sexuality. But how can a fake video of someone that everyone knows is fake by itself be assault?
I am also poly (though never been clothing optional) but the problem is the "if" in your statement there, if everyone knows it's fake, that's doing a hell of a lot of heavy lifting there. Do we know it's fake? Will we know the next model version of it is fake? If it is perfectly, completely realistically rendered, which as I understand it, is plus or minus the goal of generative art, to be completely and totally realistic?
We have a whole ass 63% of the United States who think angels are real, and that's based on nothing but the bible and indoctrination, do you think it's that big of a stretch for them to think that video of Trump pounding Obama in the backside is real, even if Obama has six fingers?
> Instead of making it illegal to generate AI porn of celebrities, maybe we should examine our culture and why we see sexualization as so threatening. Why do we freak out if our kids see two people having sex but don't blink an eye when they see violence in movies?
It's not about sex being threatening, it's about sex requiring informed, understood, and enthusiastic consent. Because if you don't own your own fucking face anymore, what do you own? If you can't even hold your own private bare ass naked form as something that is yours, only yours, and something no one else may have access to without your consent, what can you even say you do own anymore?
I posit the exact opposite question: why is it you are entitled to make pornography featuring the absolutely stunning likeness of Emma Watson? Because she's a "public figure?" Simply because you have the capability?
I think that you definitely have a point regarding people claiming images are real, and I hadn't considered that even if you make an image and say on the same page it is fake, somebody could copy the image and redistribute it.
I suppose my concern is that I believe it is important for people to be able to freely share ideas. If someone has an idea of drawing someone naked, they should be able to share that. Painting it is a way of sharing it. And I generally interpret AI imagery as that form of art and a high-fidelity expression of that idea. I generally reject the concept that an artist needs consent to display someone in a non-commercial situation, because ultimately it is just an expression of an idea.
I agree that sex requires informed consent. But this isn't sex. This is someone making art that pisses another person off because people typically feel that sex and nudity are very private and very personal. And while I believe you have autonomy of your bare naked ass, I don't believe people have ownership over someone else saying "Here's what I think so-and-so's bare naked ass would probably look like."
I mentioned my background because I don't feel like my bare naked ass needs to be private, I don't really see the issue of someone sharing a picture of me naked, anymore than any other sort of picture. The same goes for sexuality. And of course we aren't talking about real pictures, we're talking about a person's impression. Photorealistic perhaps, but still an impression, an idea, a construct.
But there's another point I want to bring up. Sure, just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's right or should be encouraged. And these tools have a lot of potential to hurt people. I mean, I could take an AI generation of someone proudly masturbating on camera, threatening to spread it around Facebook unless the victim pay me. And if they don't? Their friends could reject them. Family members might accuse them of being a slut. They could lose their job. That would be a terrible thing to happen to the victim. And I am sure it would be incredibly distressing for the victim. I'm not sure 'sexual assault' would be the correct term, but it is in the same category of awfulness. And these continuing improving tools make such scenarios possible.
But there is another thing that makes such scenarios possible: western society's bizarre view of sexuality, or at least bizarre in my mind. Even nudity is bad, I guess because it reminds people of sex? I don't think it's a bad thing to masturbate, I think most people would agree. And I think most people would agree that our hypothetical victim shouldn't be subject to social ostracism, shame, and possible unemployment. Perhaps even the image wasn't AI generated but real.
And yet...I get scam emails claiming that someone has a webcam picture of me masturbating and will share it if I don't send bitcoin to some address all the time. I've seen people get fired from their jobs for a lot less than a picture of them masturbating. Call it prudishness, call it what you will, but most Americans have very strong and frequently negative reactions to sex and nudity. I remember reading an article not too long about about a teenager girl who took her life after someone leaked some sexting pictures she took of herself to social media. Have you considered that perhaps someone seeing a (in this case fake) picture of you doing something sexual shouldn't be a life-destroying event?
As I said, our hypothetical blackmailer in this situation is doing something terrible. But they are allowed to do it because of our society's deranged obsession/fear of sex. Even though sex is something nearly everyone does (and should do), we are far more comfortable with our 10 year old kids seeing a fictional depiction of somebody's brains being blown out that a fictional depiction of two people making passionate love. I want you to just stop and think about that for a second, resist the temptation to say this is all necessary or normal. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
I'm hoping, really hoping, that society is moving in a direction where we have a healthier relationship with the human reproductive system. I think the Internet and access to pornography is helpful to that in some ways (and unhelpful in others), but AI also holds the potential move things in a better direction. Consider this: If anyone can make a sexualized image of anyone else at a click of a button, and everyone knows it, and nobody can do anything about it, maybe that will cause people to shift their morals around the shame of sex. I mean, even if our hypothetical blackmailer had a real image of me jerking off, I could just claim it's AI generated. Maybe rather than being horribly distressing, we would get to the point where someone making a fake porno of you is seen as a harmless prank.
I don't know...I'm high and probably full of shit right now, so take this rant as what you will. But I do know that something is dark and sick about our society when it comes to these things. I've seen so many people's lives hurt for breaking sexual taboos. I'm sure you feel strongly about not allowing people to be depicted without their consent. I'm sure many people in muslim-majority countries feel strongly about women being depicting without a Hijab (with or without their consent). That may seem like a false comparison, but consider it. Again, for me the idea of being thrown in prison for just being naked seems completely absurd. Look up people's rationality for the necessity of the Hijab and the necessity of public indecency laws around nudity and you might be surprised by what you find.
Anyway, I'll shut up now. I appreciate you replying and I didn't mean to make this post into soliloquy. TLDR: While I agree there are dangers associated with these technology I think that allowing it to remain legal for people to make fictional noncommercial depictions of other people in sexual situations ultimately moves society in a healthier direction that making these sorts of situations illegal, which reinforces what I perceive to be outdated and incredibly damaging taboos around what are normal (and necessary for the survival of our species) human experiences.
Last time I visited Toronto I was shocked by the amount of not just homeless people but loud and disruptive or mentally ill homeless people. I remember hearing a blood curdling scream coming from a crowd. I ran over to look, it was just this homeless man screaming at the top of his lungs as people walked past him.
My friend told me it didn't used to be this bad (we've known each other for years and he used to complain about how many homeless people there were in American cities when he visited me), but the population, at least from his perspective, seems to have surged in recent years. At the time he blamed COVID, which I am sure had an effect, but I had no idea how bad affordable housing had gotten in that country (although maybe I should have noticed since he always gripes about making STEM money and not being able to afford to live alone in Toronto).
I remember something he said once that has really stuck with me. Last time I visited he told me the homeless used to be the fringes of society that fells through the social safety net. But now in Toronto they seem to be a class all their own.
“Canada is on track to host around 900,000 international students this year, Miller said in an interview that aired Saturday on CBC's The House. That's more than at any point in Canada's history and roughly triple the number of students who entered the country a decade ago.”
There is a perverse incentive to attend what amount to for-profit scams in Canada owing to their immigration policies giving preference to folks with Canadian degrees.
Sounds like someone's not been paying attention to how the international student game works. If you think luring international students by for-profit academia is a Canada thing, you have some learning to do.
Also the idea that Canada can retain folks with a Canadian degree is hilarious: the location factor for backwater rural Washington is higher than the location factor for Vancouver or Toronto: you think those students are gonna stay in Canada after they graduate instead of moving South and getting paid twice the amount for the same position? Because if you do, that's another bit where you have some learning to do.
You are unfamiliar with the Canadian international student game. For reference, the Unites States has roughly the same number of international students as Canada (~1 million) at 10x the population. This large number has created an industry of “strip mall” for-profit colleges that award degrees which provide a preferred path to citizenship because Canada’s immigration system offers additional points for having a Canadian degree (technically any degree but a Canadian degree is automatically qualified while foreign degrees are not). These people are often not looking to get an education and then get a job in America - they are often trying to immigrate and the cost of attending the Canadian college is just part of the paperwork for them.
America’s immigration system, in contrast, is generally merit-blind. You do not get extra points for a degree and so there is no incentive to pursue a qualified American degree. The US path for an international student seeking citizenship is based on work after the degree: sponsorship by an employer. The Canadian path for an international student IS the degree.
Yeah. Here in Vancouver you need 250k+ yearly household income to afford a very average detached single-family house (3 bed, 1 floor) anywhere in the metro area. A typical senior engineer salary here, for a local company, is $200k/year on the high end. AWS/MS might pay a bit more but not significantly.
The larger houses in "nice" neighborhoods are going for 4/5 million, so they're not getting purchased by anyone in the working class, by which I mean anyone who relies on regular employment income to live.
It's lower, yes, but in Toronto and Vancouver it has definitely improved in the last decade.
Amazon opened big offices in both cities (bias: I was one of the early Amazon people in Toronto) and quickly grew by outbidding other employers on good developers. Then other companies opened offices to do the same to Amazon. Now there's a pretty big dev economy.
Top end is not the same as average. Not everyone can work at FAANG and no one else in the sector pays like FAANG. What's healthy is a top end that can afford 90% of housing and a median that can afford 50%. Instead we have a top end that can afford 50% and a median that can barely afford 10%. That's what's out of whack.
It's still substantially lower. I know some talented devs who got offers from Amazon within the past couple years, and Amazon's internal HR rules placed a strict comp ceiling on their offer that could be doubled if they'd agree to work from Seattle rather than Vancouver. Same developer, same role, and a very short distance to move. So they moved.
Taxes are a pretty big difference too. Even though the California top federal + state isn't that far off of Ontario the income bands are much wider. At 300k USD(410 CAD) you'll have about an extra 21k USD take home in California. Then sales taxes are 13% in Ontario vs 7-10% in Cali(local taxes).
Right. I think a lot of foreigners are completely oblivious to how little people with good jobs have to pay for insurance premiums and max out of pockets. Everyone seems to think it’s nothing but $100K bills for having a paper cut.
Some people with good jobs have that. The huge majority of Americans don’t, and average out of pocket healthcare costs are around $1600 yearly per person.
Before I moved to Canada I never had a company that covered all my deductibles and only one that covered my entire premium. That kind of benefit is extremely rare. It is truly a privilege of the rich to not have to think about the cost of health care in America.
Meanwhile in Canada I can go to any doctor in the province and know that I will never see a bill, and never be told that my insurance won’t cover the cost, and never have to argue on the phone about whether a procedure ordered by a doctor was necessary. It doesn’t matter if I am employed by Facebook, unemployed, or taking a few months of paternity leave.
Foreigners don’t think that everybody goes bankrupt for a few stitches. They think it’s a travesty that anybody is in that position.
That is very rare, you should consider yourself lucky. I work for a 100,000+ person software company and my [health + dental + HSA] is over $10k to cover my family of 4.
You are correct, but I don't think we can ignore the massive drug abuse problem, that has progressively gotten worse over the past 50 years, and especially 20.
I would argue that the rise in drug abuse is a consequence of societal issues - not the cause.
In my experience many people use drugs. Those that abuse drugs almost always had existing problems prior (mental health, destitution, a sense of hopelessness, etc).
Generally you don't solve homelessness with affordable housing. We might call it "homelessness" but that's just the bullshit word we use based on the symptom, it's actually destitution, and the help they need extends so far beyond just getting them their own place that that part is actually the easiest problem to solve compared to all the other parts that also need solving.
The fact that Toronto and Vancouver haven't even set up container apartments in several places around the city is all the proof you need that folks don't care, which means they shouldn't be given a choice on whether or not to solve the problem. This should get mandated with fines for the city itself if it doesn't help the people who can't help themselves because the system's been designed to prevent them from getting help.
I disagree that the root problem is "destitution" rather than affordable housing.
I haven't seen much good research on the best way to solve homelessness, but most cross-city analyses suggest that high rent (and low housing density) is the main determinant of homelessness rates: https://sci-hub.ee/10.1111/1467-9906.00168
Note that "extreme poverty," "low-wage jobs," and welfare recipients were not significant factors.
A second study claims the "the availability of low income housing and of mental health care are the strongest predictors. Relatively modest investments in improving availability of these services would provide considerable payoff in reducing homelessness": https://sci-hub.ee/10.2307/800641
A third study I can't find now concluded that 25th-percentile-rent (rather than median rent) was the most significant factor (ie, availability of affordable housing).
That sounds like confusing the cause for the solution: there's a very big difference between "why someone became homeless" (i.e. no affordable housing) and helping "who they are now that they've been living on the street". You don't magically get those folks back on their feet purely by getting them housing, even if getting them housing is a critical step. There are so many more steps that are now necessary.
It's more cost-efficient and effective long-term to prevent people from falling into homelessness. And affordable housing is widely viewed as a major root cause. [1]
Yes, people on the streets should be helped. But if 4 people fall into homelessness for every 1 person place in permanent supportive housing (this is the ratio in SF [2]), we will never "solve homelessness."
> Generally you don't solve homelessness with affordable housing.
I think in some part, you do. I think a significant portion of homeless became that way through the stress and despair of affording $2k+ rents on a meager income, dealing with the lack of hope by turning to alcohol and possible other drugs, leading to a downward spiral where they end up on the street, abusing drugs for years, and eventually turning into the destitution you see.
you don't solve what homelessness actually is just with (almost always temporary) housing, you just get people off the street, which is a necessary step one in a multi step process, because just getting them off the street and then going "k, now make it work yourself" would be about as effective as not getting them off the street.
> This should get mandated with fines for the city itself if it doesn't help the people who can't help themselves because the system's been designed to prevent them from getting help.
The problem is that "help" means different things to different people.
For years, the general view was that addicts in Canada got help via safe injection sites, first responders trained in administering naxolone, free housing available, and no real consequences for petty crime. Keeping them out of jail and making sure they had housing and clean drugs was seen as helping them.
It's only been in the past ~2 years, now that it's spiraled out of control during COVID, that some are redefining "help" to mean forced rehabilitation and/or institutionalization and keeping them off the streets if they commit crime. But there's no consensus on this.
I wonder if Congress realizes the mental health burden this lack of sufficient action has on their young population.
It's easy to feel powerless but if you want to be part of the solution one thing you could consider is donating 5-10% of your income to reputable charities that focus on direct action where it is needed most: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/charities/founders-pledge-cl...
Another thing you can do is encourage people not to vote for politicians who claim climate change isn't happening and learn how to counter common misconceptions and the techniques that best change people's mind: https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-of-climate-science-d...
I really hope our species can solve this collective action problem because I'd hate to imagine how future generations will look back on us. People seem to think technology is going to somehow make things go back to how it was. That things will get better. Things are never going to get better, they are only going to get worse. How much worse depends on what we do today.
I can't edit my other comment, but this is even better source to explain the lack of action from our governments.
"What is ecologically and socially necessary for sustainability is not polically feasible, but the politically feasible is ecologically and socially ineffective, if not catastrophic." (time @ 50.20)
The ones who used to be willing to lay down their lives for honour and the love of their people and homeland, and who now see military service to the regime as futile and even self-defeating.
Yes, I think we're using "solar powered" differently. I took it to mean "hook the device up to a square mile of solar cells so it can get the 100MW it needs". If you can leave it out in the sun, and it just works, in a reasonable time period, that would be a breakthrough. But I would be surprised as these are very endothermic reactions so somehow NOT having to put in a lot of power would imply they're breaking the laws of thermo-dynamics...
