That makes sense. Thanks.

it's a pretty reasonable position for someone to think "a company now sells a service that lets you generate fake porn of any human" is a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed, regardless of whether you make people jump through some notional age verification hope

>it's a pretty reasonable position for someone to think "a company now sells a service that lets you generate fake porn of any human" is a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed,

There is a surprising number of people here on HN (and I imagine elsewhere) that think generating fake porn of real people without their consent is totally fine, if not their right to do so.

You can see some of them cropping up in the comments here already.

Such a shame there is no explicit and complete list of all rights, so that everything that's off that list is obviously prohibited.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but generating and distributing non-consensual nudes is already "obviously prohibited" (by law) in many jurisdictions. It is also explicitly prohibited by twitter's terms of service.

And those people are why I wish this site had a block commenter ability instead of having to bother reading them

what about drawing a picture of your mum getting bukkaked? that existed long before AI and im sure you can find someone so good at drawing you thought it was a picture. i want equivocy in legislation, its either naughty or its not

>what about drawing a picture of your mum getting bukkaked?

It's really weird that you chose to make your point this way instead of the hundreds of other ways you could have phrased it.

I mean, it's obvious you're just trolling, so I'm not surprised. But I hope one day you think back on some of the things you typed out and cringe at how fucking weird it is.

so we can draw deepfakes then? just not digitally draw them?