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.

    • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      10 months ago

      Is that hatred, or fear, that I hear in this comment?

      That’s “suppressing theft masquerading as art is awesome” you hear in that comment.

        • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          10 months ago

          Ah, it was the third option, ignorance.

          Oh, I’m not at all ignorant of how horrible generative " art " is, but I appreciate you checking on me.

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            If it’s horrible and it’s also “masquerading” as human art, what does that say about human art?

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • olorin99@kbin.earth
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

                • FfaerieOxide@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  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.

                  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    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.

                • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  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

            • Gamma@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              10 months ago

              Misunderstanding doesn’t make the comment into the type of gotcha you think it is