A good-faith reading of the sort of suggestion the author never made is for the blanket opt-in consent to allow other users generate images/videos of you to be segmented into separate consents for PG, adult, fetish etc.; also face/whole body. A very clear consent form that tells them upfront "If you consent to users generating fetish consent of you, here are some examples of what's allowed and forbidden".

> Is the author suggesting we should stop people from creating fetish content of purely AI-generated characters?

Presumably not, but she's farming outrage rather than suggesting any fix. In the above suggested setup, people could then generate fetish consent from the much smaller set of users who consented to have fetish consent generated from them. But then of course they might expect some royalties or revenue-sharing, or at least identification/attribution/watermarking so the depicted user could drive traffic to social-media. OpenAI is skirting around not just segmented consent but any concept of revenue-sharing (i.e. OpenAI wants to dip its toe into OnlyFans territory, but without any revenue-sharing or licensing deal with creators).

The problem is adults contribute to turning public platforms lewd. So one lewd person on Instagram leads to many, leading to a lewd platform. This becomes problematic when the children uptake it. It’s not really too different than prostitution appearing near general-purpose places, it turns it into a red light district.

A lot of social media is a sex platform, and it got mixed up in this way because there’s no talking adults out of being lewd in public.

I don't think she's passing any judgment here - she pointed out earlier in the article that she knows people are into weird stuff, and didn't want to "yuck their yum."

Why are teams always, always so naive?

Sigh, it's in TFA.

> I've allowed anyone to make "cameos" using my face. (You don't have to do this: You can choose settings that make your likeness private, or open to just your friends — but I figured, why not? And left my likeness open to everyone, just like Sam Altman.)

no she opted in

Is it actually easy to train the AI on all the faces so it can make pictures that look like humans while also training it to not make pictures that look like any specific human?

the whole point of sora is you can generate photos of yourself and friends...

The app allows you to control if other people can generate photos of you. If the author doesn't want other people to make these photos, disable public video generation...

In a world where absolutely everyone has a camera in their pocket I can’t see how you’d ever be able to enforce this.

Terrible argument, you should say because of generative AI where anybody can fabricate any image/video/audio of anyone in any context without their consent we urgently need new regulation of social media platforms to accommodate this profound change in our reality. Then make your argument.

You have no expectation of privacy in public spaces since forever, that is not a problem. Because nobody can photograph you stabbing someone and uploading it on social media without you actually stabbing someone. This is now different, because anyone now can make that photograph of you stabbing someone and post it.

That must be your argument.

And it must be on the social media side, because in X months some open model on GitHub is gonna make every watermark or cloud-based safety feature meaningless anyway.

You’re treating this article as an attack when it’s not one. She turned it on to see what would happen, because she’s a technology reporter, and then reported on what happened. And her reporting isn’t even all that negative.

Rule 34

Tbh if you are sufficiently famous or have a bunch of pictures of you available online you don’t need to opt-in.

So this is silly yes but people can still easily make deepfake porn of you from any photo available with other oss tools

People always have been pervy and gross in private and society has always provided outlets for them to do so while preserving their privacy and dignity.

However, using a wannabe AI social media platform to engage with this stuff (and said platform encouraging you to do so), is crossing several uncomfortable lines for me.

This does appear to be her shtick. Engaging in a thing so she can report upon it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/threads-meta-engagement-rage...

All evidence points to the author trying to make this a moral panic, especially with the emphasis on "real women" being used to generate these (despite the feature meaning they have consented to it)

I don’t think one is a prude or a conservative for not wanting AI generated porn of themselves to exist.

I also don’t think one is a prude or a conservative for thinking there are consent and power issues around anything that commingles sex and the workplace.

Things can be unacceptable without being illegal. Things can even be unacceptable without needing to be banned or privately controlled.

My bar for what should be unacceptable is a lot lower than my bar for what should be illegal or privately banned.

Making weird pregnancy fetish videos of real people without their permission is definitely unacceptable. I have no issue with the idea that anyone doing that should be shamed.

Yup. Likewise cinematography, photography, fiction writing, spoken language, and cave paintings, all have had a pervert problem since day one.

The article is describing a feedback loop: very few women consent to have their face be usable -> the number of perverts vastly outnumber the number of women so each woman, who has posted nothing nsfw, or even suggestive, gets dedicated attention from many perverts -> other women aren’t comfortable allowing their faces to be used by large numbers of perverts-> very few women consent to have their faces be usable.

This is all independent of what is and isn’t a legitimate business model, it’s a social dynamic. It’s also a pretty familiar one: it shows up everywhere from nightclub bouncer policies to the dynamics of early 2000s irc rooms

Don't even bother to look at r/grok. When you have a waifu anime avatar… yeah, it went exactly where you would expect it to. Apparently XAi is reigning in the NSFW and people on the sub are livid.

I think seeing others make such content with your appearance should be taken as flattery.

Post body or gtfo

(for those lacking context, this is a callback to a 4chan trope that is inextricable from OP's argument)

> but I think seeing others make such content with your appearance should be taken as flattery.

I think maybe you're an adult male.

Having actually talked to some female friends about this, I'm pretty sure that women in general don't take so well to the idea of tools that might be used to encourage the fantasies of the men that already have a dangerous interest in harming them sexually.

Whether the Valley thinks that's their problem to solve, I doubt. But making a joke out of it is pretty fucked up, dude.

ETA: even women who have done some modelling and are a bit more aware of the way those images are used are at least somewhat concerned about content that can make them act and speak like puppets. This is at least as much about consent as it is about content.

ETA2: I am rate-limited for being an argumentative sod in the past so I will finally edit this to note that 1) I am replying only to the sentence I quoted which has very troubling connotations, and 2) I really think a lot of people here seem not to have read Julian Dibbell's crucial 1993 article "A Rape In Cyberspace" and it really shows.