This is a shallow take, no matter which way you look at it. "Guns don't kill people."

“NSFW deepfakes” literally means “porn with real people’s faces inserted.”

Maybe that’s an art form, but it’s also clearly potentially harmful in the same way as revenge porn, teenage nude selfies, and other cases where regular people and porn intersect.

99% agree. The 1% is for the potential for deepfakes to solve blackmail. If producing deepfakes becomes trivial, any blackmail threat can be dismissed with “Whatever, I’ll just say it’s a deepfake”.

This is not how humans work. False statements about someone damage that person, even once everybody knows they're false.

But with this argument you could blackmail someone whether or not you have some evidence.

You indeed can. Any of your coworkers can report you to HR right now for allegedly saying to them in private that you find underaged boys attractive. Wouldn't that at least be quite stressful to you?

Personally, I've been on the fence about doing sex work. On the one hand, I'm nervous about people identifying me based on my face or identifying marks, but lately I feel like I shouldn't care, I should be open about it and that way I can't be blackmailed.

This sounds like something literally 90% of humanity does in their imagination at some point in their lives. It's inevitable that someone is going to do it in a video when the tech becomes good enough.

I'd say it's not the thing itself that's a problem, it's publishing whatever you create as if it's real. There are many things in life that are potentially harmful, but are part of everyday life since nobody actually harms anyone with them.

You do see the difference between a thought, shared with no one and visible to no one, and an image on a computer, which can be uploaded to the internet, right? This isn't about stopping sexual desire, it's about not distributing images of someone's naked body without their permission. That it's not a guaranteed accurate representation is sort of beside the point. It's good enough if you've never seen them naked before. Some people have gone on record saying they don't like it when it happens to them. Why, do you think?

> You do see the difference between a thought, shared with no one and visible to no one, and an image on a computer, which can be uploaded to the internet, right?

Why do you assume it’s shared with no-one? The representations change, but I can guarantee you that Bianna the Beautiful had several suggestive clay figures created of her without her permission.

Not to say that that was necessarily great, Bianna would probably have been upset too. But trying to fight the method of representation instead of the sharing seems like a fools errant to me.

Why is it clearly potentially harmful? It is not clear to me at all, as photoshop already exists.

How is someone harmed by someone else producing video that features people who look like them? The whole "seeing is believing" thing hasn't been true for ages, every movie is half CG these days.

I would perhaps buy the premise if deepfakes were sprung on the scene in the 70s or 80s, but the 90s and 2000s have inundated so many with completely fantastical high res CG imagery that nobody thinks videos are proof of anything anymore.

Wouldn't there be a dramatically different level of effort to photoshop every frame in a video convincingly than to create a deep fake of the video?

Do you agree that most people wouldn't like to find a nude video of themselves online?

Now why does it make a difference if the video is real or not? It's still a video of a nude body with your face on it.

I find this whole deepfake-porn trend to be incredibly disgusting. And it just saddens me that heterosexual males always immediately have to exploit such things for their own hornyness. I guess this is also the reason why this topic is not being criticized as much, because the people who develop and consume these videos can't comprehend how disrespectful it all is towards the people (women) who are being deepfaked AND especially the results being shared online, in most cases publicly.

I think that most people would not care if a video is posted online of them if the video is in fact fake.

Would you care if someone posted a nude image of someone with your face photoshopped on it? If so, why?

This recently happened to a large number of women that are Twitch streamers and they are all very upset. You are free to seek out and read their explanations as to why, I'll include a few tweets.

https://twitter.com/qtcinderella/status/1620264657926885380?...

https://twitter.com/mayahiga/status/1620586546083803136?t=c7...

> Would you care

Yes.

> why?

Because it's insanely creepy for someone to photoshop my face onto a naked body without asking me and then post said picture online?!? Especially if it's done so well that people don't notice that it's not actually me.

If your rebuttal is that "not everyone cares if deepfaked photos of themselves are being published online" then the answer is pretty simple: As long as you don't know if someone minds it, don't fucking do it.

It's really alienating to me when I think about the fact that we're discussing if it's okay to upload deepfaked nudes of someone without their consent.

The only reason I can come up with is that some people have probably consumed lots of deepfakes and now don't want admit that it's maybe a bit creepy and wrong.

I just don't understand why anyone would care?

You don't need consent from anyone depicted in visual art to make visual art. It literally has nothing to do with them.

I see no moral, ethical, or consent issue with deepfakes whatsoever. People are allowed to make whatever sort of CGI they can imagine, and, most critically: they should be.

> You don't need consent from anyone depicted in visual art to make visual art

We're talking about (mr)deepfakes. Which is visual art, yes. Nude visual art.

That's kinda the point. The nudity is what makes it immediately not okay.

If you just deepfake someones face onto Jason Stathams body, they will probably enjoy and laugh about it.

If you deepfake their face onto someone who's getting roughly f*cked in the ass, they might not like it that much.

But then again, not just nudity is wrong. Deepfaking someones face into a video to hurt them is wrong as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I really think that AI Ethics should be pushed harder and more seriously.

If someone deepfakes their favorite actresses head into a porn video, I still think that it's wrong. What I would appreciate is if I can at least agree with this person, that what they're doing is not 100% okay.

> You don't need consent from anyone depicted in visual art to make visual art. It literally has nothing to do with them.

Yes you do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Have you asked the people this happened to or are you just making assumptions? It’s important to critically examine our own biases in things like this, particularly if we have no idea why something evokes a strong emotional reaction.

> I think that most people would not care if a video is posted online of them if the video is in fact fake.

I think most people would care a lot. After all, it doesn't matter if it's fake or not, if matters if anyone you care about thinks it's real. And some almost certainly will.

We've not had the test case, but in places where nonconsensual or "revenge" porn is criminalized, deepfakes may well turn out to be illegal. They're certainly distressing for the victim.

It's already illegal for a person to pretend to be another real person without their consent.

This needs an asterisk (and I'll include one of my own: IANAL). In the United States, impersonation is regulated by the states and not consistent across them, but in general this is only true when using impersonation to commit fraud, defamation, or another act that itself is likely a crime already. Many cases would be considered parody or satire, even if no one finds them funny.

This may be the case in some places, and fraud is illegal in general, but should it be illegal to make parodies of politicians using paid actors? I think most people would say no.

Then why should it be illegal to do the same with an AI?