Yeah, it certainly still feels icky, especially since a lot of those materials in all likelihood will still have ended up in the model without the original photo subjects knowing about it or consenting. But that's at least much better than having a model straight up trained on CSAM, and at least hypothetically, there is a way to make this process entirely "clean".
There are legit, non-CSAM types of images that would still make these changes apparent, though. Not every picture of a naked child is CSAM. Family photos from the beach, photos in biology textbooks, even comic-style illustrated children's books will allow inferences about what real humans look like. So no, I don't think that an image generation model has to be trained on any CSAM in order to be able to produce convincing CSAM.
But Johansson's public statement describes how they tried to shmooze her: they approached her last fall and were given the FO, contacted her agent two days before launch to ask for reconsideration, launched it before they got a response, then yanked it when her lawyers asked them how they made the voice.
Which is still not an admission of guilt, but seems very shady at the very least, if it's actually what happened.
where anyone thinks it's ok or normal to recommend suicide to people
Except that's already happening even without it being normalized, there have always been assholes that are gonna tell people to kill themselves, especially if they've never seen the person they're talking to before. I don't see how this is any different.
Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.
It also wouldn't have happened if a fucked up system wasn't withholding actual, reasonable alternatives that the person was clearly asking for. That's my point. Let's fix the actual problems, rather than try to silence the symptoms.
...and did you notice how everyone was outraged by that? That incident was not an issue with assisted suicide being available, that was an issue with fucked up systems withholding existing alternatives and a tone-deaf case worker (who is not a doctor) handling impersonal communications. Maybe it's also an issue with this kind of thing being able to be decided by a government worker instead of medical and psychological professionals. But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn't have been put into the spotlight like this.
I don't want to create a future where, "I've tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit," is met with a polite and friendly, "Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?"
Are you for real? This kind of thing is a last resort that nobody is going to just outright suggest unprompted to a suffering person, unless that person asks for it themselves. No matter how "normalized" suicide might become, it's never gonna be something doctors will want to recommend. That's just... Why would you even think that's what's gonna happen
It's not quite that simple, though. GDPR is only concerned with personally identifiable information. Answers and comments on SO rarely contain that kind of information as long as you delete the username on them, so it's not technically against GDPR if you keep the contents.
Well you're also not going around holding written pieces of text to someone's face to talk to them in real life, yet that's how we're communicating here, and you don't seem to find that weird. It doesn't need to be the same to be a helpful analogue. Sounds from your mouth -> written text, facial expressions and gestures -> emoji/emoticons. There's actual research demonstrating that people actually do parse and react to emojis and emoticons in the same way they would to real facial expressions.
So do you also expect everyone over 12 to always keep a pokerface in real life conversations, or is this rule confined to virtual spaces for some arbitrary reason?
why the hell is this particular label a whole goddamn spectrum that I have to pull out a chart to explain??
I'm sorry that humans and human sexuality are complicated, I guess? Asexuality is just a little bit different in that there's significant spread in sex-favorability, which just is not the case as much with the other orientations. Again, if you really want the label all for yourself, please tell what label sex-favorable aces should use instead in your opinion, I'm genuinely curious.
But also, I still don't see how just a quick addition of "and sex-repulsed" is that much harder. It is literally three words. If the other person doesn't respect that, that likely wouldn't have been any different with a shorter label.
What's wrong with just saying "I don't want sex" or "I'm sex repulsed"? You make it sound like that's unsafe in some way, and I don't understand why, so I feel like I'm missing something here.
Nobody wants to take anything away from you. Sex-favorable people who don't experience sexual attraction just also want to have a label for themselves. If they're not allowed to call themselves asexual, what do you propose they call themselves instead? Graysexual would be wrong since that would mean experiencing sexual attraction to some degree at least some of the time.
take the word “asexual” and say “Yes asexual people still want sex!”
Yeah but nobody is doing that. More accurate would be "Asexual people might still want sex, if it's important to you, please ask (appropriately)".
If you want "asexual" to exclusively mean people who feel no sexual attraction and are sex-repulsed, then what would you propose people who experience no sexual attraction who are still sex-favorable or sex-neutral should call themselves? Like, I'm sympathetic to your frustration, but they also deserve a label
we’re after a way to clearly communicate no.
There is, it's saying "I don't want sex" or "I'm sex repulsed". It's even better because anyone can use that regardless of their sexual attraction, even.
Sure it's pretty far away, but it's also moving at break neck speed. Last year low-res spaghetti-eating Will Smith body horror was the pinnacle of ai generated video, today we're already generating videos that take at least a second look to determine that it was AI generated. The big question is at what point that improvement rate will start to level off.
This is like saying "yes, gay men can still have sex with women, as long as they're not attracted to them. They're still gay! It's only a name!"
Well... That's correct, though. It might be a little easier to see if you consider the stereotype of male-on-male sex in prisons or militaries. Or, to keep closer to your example, a homosexual man having sex with a woman just to see what it's like. Or because he's closeted and trying to conform to social pressure. There are lots of reasons to have sex with someone, and having sex with people of a particular gender does not necessarily determine your sexuality, if sexual attraction is not one of them. I mean, sure, a gay man having sex with lots of women for apparently no other reason than that he likes it might be a little sus, but, like, you might just not know what's going on.
The amount of times I've been asked if I'm "one of those asexuals who have sex" is gross.
I agree that that's gross. But not because it implies that it's valid for asexuals to like sex. It's gross because that is a weirdly intimate detail to just ask casually about, regardless of your sexuality.
because it apparently includes everybody.
No. Only those who don't feel sexual attraction towards others. Regardless of whether they like having sex or not.
I am against not being able to use the label to distinguish clear what I identify as anymore
If the "not having sex" part is important to you, what's wrong with identifying as "sex-repulsed asexual" instead of just "asexual"? Sounds like that would already solve your problem
If you label a relationship as platonic, that usually serves to make it explicit that there's no romance or sex going on, yes.
When talking about attraction though, we're in the context of the split attraction model (look that up if you're interested), and there, platonic attraction is treated not as the opposite of sexual attraction, but as its own axis for basically saying "how much do I want this person to be my friend", without saying anything about how much you're sexually attracted to the person.
If you want to properly reconcile the terms, think about it like this - a sexual/romantic relationship is one where the sexual/romantic attraction between the partners is the strongest force, whereas a platonic relationship is one where their platonic attraction is the strongest force.
I personally actually have a hard time seeing platonic and romantic attraction as separate axes, for me, romantic attraction just feels like an extension, a stronger form of platonic attraction.
hikaru755 @ hikaru755 @feddit.de Posts 7Comments 224Joined 2 yr. ago
Yeah, it certainly still feels icky, especially since a lot of those materials in all likelihood will still have ended up in the model without the original photo subjects knowing about it or consenting. But that's at least much better than having a model straight up trained on CSAM, and at least hypothetically, there is a way to make this process entirely "clean".