In a world where every celebrity is having sex with gorillas, doesn't such an image lose its charge? Will Norms and values around sex/body shaming change?

But it's even more true for non-famous people getting bullied in their social groups, both online and offline, and that's more what I was responding to (the "asshole friends" in the original comment).

E.g. crypto wallets, hardware signing tokens, etc.

We could imagine an imaging sensor chip made by a big-name company whose reputation matters, where the imaging sensor chip does the signing itself.

So, Sony or Texas Instruments or Canon start manufacturing a CCD chip that crypto signs its output. And this chip "can't" be messed with in the same way that other crypto-signing hardware "can't" be messed with.

That doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.

* edit: As I think about it, I think more likely what happens is that e.g. Apple starts promising that any "iPhoneReality(tm)" image, which is digitally signed in a certain way, cannot have been faked and was certainly taken by the hardware that it 'promises' to be (e.g. the iPhone 25).

Regardless of how they implement it at the hardware level to maintain this guarantee, it is going to be a major target for security researchers to create fake images that carry the signature.

So, we will have some level of trust that the signature "works", because it is always being attacked by security researchers. Just like our crypto methods work today. There will be a cat-and-mouse game between manufacturers and researchers/hackers, and we'll probably know years in advance when a particular implementation is becoming "shaky".

We will learn to trust sources (cryptographically signed) rather than just what we see.

I hoped this would happen with social media. Everyone says stupid shit online and everyone has past beliefs they’ve outgrown. So what’s the big deal?

Instead we went the opposite way. Everyone is super self conscious and censoring at all times because you never know who’s gonna take it out of context and make a big deal.

If I take your photo and photoshop (very well) different surroundings. Is it a real photo if you?

If I photoshop your face (very well) onto a different body. Is that real?

If I feed your photos into a model that can create realistic versions of those photos in different poses or with different facial expressions. Is that real?

They all start with something that is very definitely a real photo. You can’t (yet? ever?) generate a realistic photo of a specific person from a textual description. The machinery needs a source.

Yes, by that definition, most photographs already aren't real.

What if I use no digital manipulation at all, but play around with focal lengths or perspective to produce the desired effect. Is that a real photo?

For example from covid reporting: https://twitter.com/baekdal/status/1254460167812415489

Just because the photo is real, doesn't mean it's free from deception. I could take a "real video" of gorilla suit^W^W bigfoot and it'd still be deceptive.

Hell, just changing focal length makes a bigg difference to what your face looks like: https://imgur.io/gallery/ZKTWi no digital manipulation required.

Which of those faces is “real”? They’re all just recording photons hitting the camera, but look very different.

It gets even worse when we start talking about colors. For example: it took cameras decades before they could accurately capture black faces. Where accurately means “an average person would say it looks right”

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias

Edit: here's a fun example of how journalists use perspective and focal distance tricks to support their desired story angle. No digital manipulation https://twitter.com/baekdal/status/1254460167812415489

No, because the image itself doesn't matter. What matters is how much the public wants to hate someone. If t he public is primed, any remotely plausible incriminating image will do as an excuse.

Fortunately, these images are actually far than what someone can cook up with Photoshop. Unfortunately, it's a part of a bigger trend where we get more and more tools to produce, manipulates and share information, while the tools to analyze and filter information are lagging by at least half a century.

I don't generally like his style, but this novel really captivated me. Without spoiling the plot (much), the end-result of everyone being able to spy on anyone anywhere at any time is a kind of societal disinhibition, especially related to sex, nudity, or similar taboos.

Yep! Individual images, and individuals in the first place, absolutely loses significance as supplies increase.

> Will Norms and values around sex/body shaming change?

The bar skyrockets! Look at TV stars from before 1995 - they should already appear below-average amateurs to modern eyes.

Think things like forged evidence in trials.

Don't you think?

I think it's funny how Yandex, a Russian company, releases these big language models without all the AI safety handwringing in their press releases. The Russians have a tradition of releasing technology without giving a lot of worry about what happens to it, for better or for worse. For example, they made between 75 and 100 million ak-47s, a not in any way limited machine gun, and it spread to every corner of the world. They even gave out all the plans and technical assistance so any one of the organizations they worked with could produce their own. 20 different countries make ak-47s currently. Of course you had to register every xerox machine in the Soviet Union, so maybe they just had different priorities?

The west is absolutely fascinated these days with the control of advanced technology. Drones, Blockchain, and AI models seem to be the latest things that the west is determined to exercise control over. For example:

"Many of the technological advances we currently see are not properly accounted for in the current regulatory framework and might even disrupt the social contract that governments have established with their citizens. Agile governance means that regulators must find ways to adapt continuously to a new, fast-changing environment by reinventing themselves to understand better what they are regulating. To do so, governments and regulatory agencies need to closely collaborate with business and civil society to shape the necessary global, regional and industrial transformations." -Klaus Schwab, "The Fourth Industrial Revolution", Page 70.

As if we're all one block, a single minded hive. Corrupted, degraded by a heavy capitalistic and egotistical mindset. It's fascinating to see and talk about our shortcomings isn't it? We are so inferior. The fact you wrote "The West" signifies you're one of "The Others". Someone possibly from Russia. Then you compliment Russia and degrade "The West" adding further strength to this hypothesis.

Using "The West", a simple minded sound byte that's been used in propaganda for centuries, a way of appealing to our ape-instincts to protect our tribe against others. "Us" vs "The Others".

You should make a little effort in seeing how ridiculous, infantile, and brainwashed it is to refer to countries that are not Asia or Russia as "The West".

> grey goo, a nightmarish scenario of nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating nanobots destroy the biosphere by endlessly producing replicas of themselves and feeding on materials necessary for life.

I've been wondering for a while now if this will lead to an unexpected boon: perhaps people will be forced to pay attention to a speaker's content instead of simply who is speaking.

Will remove all the useless “I didn’t say that”

- Journalist from a respected newsroom, when they choose to keep the source confidential. So it won't be better or worse than it is now: all about transitive reputation.

The unspoken threat to further denials is the risk that the source may go public, or if unauthorized, doxxing the person who recorded the video (assuming signatures have nonrepudiation)

1. True for an overwhelming majority of the body politic.

Concretely, it's probably true that children born with this technology will have adapted to many of the negative (and positive) aspects of it. But the current generation of elites, politicians, and voters might have a harder time adapting.

I don't understand this irrational fear. This can be done today, just need some minutes instead of some seconds to create a good Photoshop.

Also, seriously this is the thing you fear? fake porn? there are much worse thing you can do with this tech, like phising, falsifications, etc. Not mentioning leaving millions of graphic designers out of job.

Photoshop is a skill, not very widespread as we assume.

Typing something is literally at everyone's fingertips.

I agree that it's much easier to do low effort stuff to wind friends up, but universal access and low effort don't make it more likely to be impactful and believable.

If someone really wants to hurt you, not having AI isn't going to stop them.

I'm being polite. Things will be so much worse.

Someone will make child pornography using your child's face as the input. Someone is going to take private videos of politicians and then edit them to have them say incriminating things. Someone is going to short the stock of a large company, then release a faked video of the CEO being shot, and profit from the immediate stock plunge.

And this is just what my mind can come up with. Imagine what 4chan will invent.

> Why bother asking people not to? I guess if it helps you sleep at night that you tried, I guess?

I've perceived this as them doing the necessary amount of virtue-signaling and ass-covering to avoid the ire of groups that are loud/powerful enough to cause issues for them in the short-term. I've been following the developments in this space for a while now, and I don't get the impression that Stability AI cares too much about forcing Western ideals of "correctness" onto the public.

It's plainly obvious that this is going to be immediately used to produce content considered obscene, offensive and/or illegal by various groups of people. And it is what it is, we're going to just have to figure out how to live with it as a society. It's going to get far far worse (from certain points of view) as we continue to replicate functionality previously exclusively featured in human brains.

True to both Stable Diffusion and Dalle2, the more encompassing the content of your image is, the more incorrect the detail is. Both generally will make fantastic faces but anatomy and consistency starts falling apart with full bodies. Contorted limbs, missing fingers, too many limbs, etc. No one is going to be fooled here.

Of course the models could be trained on offensive images and over a long enough time period eventually will. But, for now, someone is going to have to spend millions of dollars on compute and have the human expertise behind it too. Then again, if we had an image generator making pictures of [insert X offensive thing] that is a whole lot less disgusting than the plentiful real photos and videos of that thing in reality.

I'm sure this is not a view shared by everyone, but it is a straightforward course of action to add such disclaimers in cases where you do agree with it and not wanting to be targeted and blacklisted from payment networks(that seems amongst their weaponry).

They just have to cover their asses, any sane dev would make the same license due to the power of this tech.

On some level I can't stop laughing since OpenAI really got smoked. "OpenAI" my ass, this is what open TRULY means!

Cheering for these devs.

my prediction is that, as a result, people will start assuming pics online are fake until proven otherwise.

"That worked well for quotations." — Abraham Lincoln

I think this is all just trendy popular sentiment moralizing AI.

They are laughed at anyway if they tell a story coming from a forged photo.

Sure, newspapers could forge stories, display pictures with, I don’t know, Biden’s son with a crackpipe, and make the populace believe untrue stories. But guess what, they already do it anyway, newspapers already “spin” (as they say, i.e. forge, suggest without literally saying) stories all the time.

The world deals correctly with fakes.

Wrong topic and facts get downvoted and the fake news prevail.

And not all links to newspaper are considered valid, especially if it's about "woke culture". Then you have to search the reasonable needle in the haystack of transphobia, homophobia and misogyny.

But preservation of transtemporal spatial invariants requires understanding far more than that - dynamic lighting, density, flexibility, rigidity and momentum, the viscosity of the air, the skeletomuscular system, the flow of the fluids within, and so on ad infinitum.

And a lot of that is tacitly understood by the human mind (even when the human mind would struggle to generate a scene, it can often detect that something is wrong - try turning on the lights in a lucid dream).

It's going to be quite some time before it reaches the point where a human cannot detect that video was generated (or altered) and even longer before computers can't.

But then, it's going to be a shit-show - and I'm not talking about the bestiality videos.

Evidence, as we know it, will be meaningless - the implications for the legal system are terrifying.

There's enough money interest in bringing down certain politicians, if faking a sex tape or back-room conversation would make any difference to the world it would have been done already. Hell, politicians pretty much admit publicly that they are rapists and we don't do anything about it. Who's gonna care about a couple of gorilla-pics of a normie?

People don't and never have trusted any evidence that doesn't reaffirm their world view, regardless of how true that evidence is. More realistic evidence won't change that.

Kidding aside, I think this is actually good. Humans need ephemerality. We are never getting the full version of it back, but with photorealistic ai video and image creation some freedom returns. I think without it a society in which everyone has a camera all the time would mean absolute ossification of social norms. Right now it's very, very new - I mean multiple generations living with the current, or better (eg. recording eye implants) technology.

At first we will see a lot of "prompt censoring mobs" that will try to "stop abusers because children and terrorists", but as the images multiply, and they will multiply, the line between real and fake photos will become hard to spot, for real. This is i think a pivotal and great moment, because everyone can now claim plausible deniability to any picture. No revenge porn will be believable anymore, nor will anyone know if that Bezos's weiner pic is real or not.

The license itself is pretty irrelevant. What people will actually do with the training blueprints, and how fast things will evolve.. now that’s interesting.

They obviously are aware. They just put all that so they don't get "canceled". It's just virtue signaling and covering your ass.

Some fear porn was thrown out when GPT-3 was released. I love GPT-3, i used it just yesterday it is very good. I am just wondering when the total destruction of the world will happen because of GPT-3.

How much could you trust media content previously? Staged footage, false narration, biased coverage are nothing new. A counter-intuitive side-effect of opening the Pandora's box could be a realization that media is a form of simulation. Perhaps this will lead more people to filter what they see through a prism of critical thinking.

And bringing the two ideas together, is child pornography that is provably created by an AI still illegal?

Nowhere will a training set featuring pictures of naked children be legal.

Appropriately from the recent news stories, but it's easy to imagine at least portions of such pictures being available for medical diagnostic purposes. I've sent pictures of my children to my doctor, so presumably in the future it's easy to imagine sending pictures to an AI to diagnose which would require a suitably fleshed out (pardon the pun) training set.

True, but generalizing beyond the training set is precisely the point of machine learning. A good generative model will be able to produce such images, no matter how heinous the content is.

... Someone is gonna do this to children. This technology is gonna end up on the news. Maybe they'll even try to ban it.

One day these image generators will also get video support... and pornography support. When that happens, a few things may occur that I think are reasonable to predict:

EDIT: Original post was way too wordy, TL;DR:

When AI-generated pornography becomes available, it could be likely that demand for "real" pornography disappears because the AI will match and surpass the "real." When that occurs, the "real" will become increasingly regulated and legally risky, and may just outright be as good as banned.