Trolls have flooded X with graphic Taylor Swift AI fakes
Trolls have flooded X with graphic Taylor Swift AI fakes
While some accounts have been suspended, many posts remain live.
Sexually explicit AI-generated images of Taylor Swift have been circulating on X (formerly Twitter) over the last day in the latest example of the proliferation of AI-generated fake pornography and the challenge of stopping it from spreading.
X’s policies regarding synthetic and manipulated media and nonconsensual nudity both explicitly ban this kind of content from being hosted on the platform.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Are you mad at people who can draw or something?
No, I'm just pointing out the common contradiction I see in threads like this, where people argue that AI is both a big threat to "traditional" artists and also that AI is terrible compared to "traditional" artists. It can't really be both.
The use of "horrible" in their comment isn't necessarily about the quality of the art. Judging from context it's probably more about the ethical considerations. So not really a contradiction.
He put quotes around the word "art", which gives me the opposite impression.
I just notice alot of cheerleaders for this " art " form come from a place of vindictiveness against people with artistic talent and their positions are rooted more in a desire to see people the view as gatekeepers receive comeuppance than an honest defense of an ostensive tool.
It can't really be both.
It totally can. Take the example of fast food. Simultaneously a threat to traditional cooking and terrible.
And yet there's still plenty of traditional restaurants.
Fast food provides a new option. It hasn't destroyed the old. And "terrible" is, once again, in the eye of the beholder - some people like it just fine.
Fast food provides a new option.
Fast food damages the health of society and impoverishes communities.
Unhealthy things should be forbidden? Even if they were, this is drifting off of the subject of AI art.
Things that are bad for society should be suppressed and things which are good for society should be promoted. That would seem to be the point of a society.
Further, I notice a pastern in your replies of bringing up metaphor then rejecting the very metaphor as off topic or irrelevant when it is engaged to it's logical conclusion.
No accusing you of engaging in bad faith or anything, but it smells (sorry, metaphor again) less-than-fresh.
Things that are bad for society should be suppressed and things which are good for society should be promoted.
Should we also have a single wise man to decide which is which? That has been tried before, multiple times.
Should we also have a single wise man to decide which is which?
Well we certainly shouldn't have violence for violence, as is the Rule of Beasts.
Is AI art literally violent, or is this another analogy?
Things that are bad for society should be suppressed and things which are good for society should be promoted. That would seem to be the point of a society.
Great, now we just need to establish whether AI art is "bad for society", and if it is then whether the effects of attempting to ban it would be worse for society.
Further, I notice a pastern in your replies of bringing up metaphor then rejecting the very metaphor as off topic or irrelevant when it is engaged to it's logical conclusion.
What metaphors did I bring up? You're the one who brought fast food into this. I don't see any other metaphors in play.
Great, now we just need to establish whether AI art is "bad for society"
That seems fairly evident
You're the one who brought fast food into this.
You were fine engaging fastfood until I pointed out it, like AI " art " was terrible. Only then did you deride the metaphor as off topic.
That seems fairly evident
Hardly. There wouldn't be much debate about it if it was, would there?
You were fine engaging fastfood until I pointed out it, like AI " art " was terrible. Only then did you deride the metaphor as off topic.
Alright, in future I will try to remember to immediately reject any metaphors you bring into play rather than attempt to engage with them.
There wouldn't be much debate about it if it was, would there?
Sure there can be. People debate crypto being good and that's roundly recognized as ecocide. People "debate" who counts as people all the time. People can be wrong and loud.
Alright, in future I will try to remember to immediately reject any metaphors you bring into play rather than attempt to engage with them.
Not saying you have to do that, but if you don't it's rather untoward to bring it up later as though it's a problem.
Oh buddy come on you can't actually be misunderstanding how they used "horrible." They're not saying it's bad quality they're saying it's bad morally
You realize how a word like that can have ambiguous meanings, yes?
"That's "suppressing theft masquerading as art is awesome" you hear in that comment."
Emphasis mine. The context clues make the intended meaning pretty obvious