Here's the thing with AI, especially as it becomes more AGI like, it will encompass all human behaviors. This will lead to the bad behaviors becoming especially noticeable since bad actors quickly realized this is a force multiplication factor for them.

This is something everyone needs to think about when discussing AI safety. Even ANI applications carry a lot of potential societal risks and they may not be immediately evident. I know with the information superhighway few expected it to turn into a dopamine drip feed for advertising dollars, yet here we are.

> bad actors quickly realized this is a force multiplication factor for them

You'd think we would have learned this lesson in failing to implement email charges that net'd to $0 for balanced send/receive patterns. And thereby heralded in a couple decades of spam, only eventually solved by centralization (Google).

Driving the cost of anything valuable to zero inevitably produces an infinite torrent of volume.

AI doesn't encompass any "human behaviours", the humans controlling it do. Grok doesn't generate nude pictures of women because it wants to, it does it because people tell it to and it has (or had) no instructions to the contrary

I hate to be a smartass, but do you read the stuff you type out?

>Grok doesn't generate nude pictures of women because it wants to,

I don't generate chunks of code because I want to. I do it because that's how I get paid and like to eat.

What's interesting with LLMs is they are more like human behaviors than any other software. First you can't tell non-AI (not just genAI)software to generate a picture of a naked women, it doesn't have that capability. So after that you have models that are trained on content such as naked people. I mean, that's something humans are trained on, unless we're blind I guess. If you take a data set encompassing all human behaviors, which we do, then the model will have human like behaviors.

It's in post training that we add instructions to the contrary. Much like if you live in American you're taught that seeing naked people is worse than murdering someone and that if someone creates a naked picture of you, your soul has been stolen. With those cultural biases programmed into you, you will find it hard to do things like paint a picture of a naked person as art. This would be openAI's models. And if you're a person that wanted to rebel, or lived in a culture that accepted nudity, then you wouldn't have a problem with it.

How many things do you do because society programmed you that way, and you're unable to think outside that programming?

If it can generate porn, it can do so because it was explicitly trained on porn. Therefore the system was designed to generate porn. It can't just materialize a naked body without having seen millions of them. they do not work that way.

Not all pictures of naked people are porn.

You’re way off base. It can also create sexually explicit pictures of men.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but women are disproportionately affected by this than men.

That sounds like it could be true, but do you have any actual evidence of that?

These are one of those things that are hard to get statistics of due to the nature of the subject, but going to any website that features AI generated content like CivitAI will show you a lot more naked AI generated women than men, and that the images of women are greatly better in quality than the men. None of the people actually exist, of course, but some things stem from this:

1. There are probably AI portals that are OK with uploading nonconsensual sexual images of people. I am not about to go looking for those, but the ratio of women to men on those sites is likely similar. 2. The fact that the quality of women is better than the quality of men speaks to vastly more training being done on women 3. Because there's so much training on women it's just easier to use AI for nefarious purposes on women than men (have to find custom trained LORAs to get male anatomy right, for example).

I did try to look for statistics out of curiosity, but most just cite a number without evidence.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/women-face-new-sexual-hara...

https://verfassungsblog.de/deepfakes-ncid-ai-regulation/

https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-shoulder-worries-ai

Obviously there is more interest in generating images of naked women, since naked women look better than naked men. It’s not some kind of patriarchal conspiracy.

It is obvious, but again that's subjective (I'm a straight male so of course I find it to be true but I'm not sure straight women would agree). The person I was responding to was asking if evidence existed, so I was curious to see if evidence did indeed exist.

In addition to AI-specific data, the existing volume and consumption patterns for non-AI pornography can be extrapolated to AI, I think, with high confidence.

Source: I have eyes

So everything that was already done before generative AI.

It's true, making these things easier and faster and more accessible really doesn't matter

That's a bonkers take.

Am I misunderstanding you or are you somehow saying anything done in the past is fine to do more of?

Poe's Law, mate.

>The internet by comparison feels like a clear net positive to me, even with all the bad it enables.

When I think of the internet, I think of malware, porn, social media manipulating people, flame wars, "influencers", and more.

It is also used to scam the elderly, sharing photoshopped sexually explicit pictures of men, women, and children, without their consent, stealing all kinds of copyrighted material, and definitely sucking the joy out of everything. Revenge porn wasn't started in 2023 with OpenAI. And just look at META's current case about Instagram being addicting and harmful to children. If "AI" is a tech carcinogen, then the internet is a nuclear reactor, spewing radioactive material every which way. But hey, it keeps the lights on! Clearly, a net positive.

Let's just be intellectually consistent, that's all I'm saying.