I’d rather have AI porn that doesn’t involve human trafficking, massive exploitation, actors/actresses with a high suicide rate, child abuse, and all of the rest of the evil/bad things that the porn industry currently has.
Can [cars] be ethical? Can [rocking chairs] be ethical? This question is nonsensical. “AI porn” is the output of a production process.
Are we being asked if it can be produced ethically? Or possessed ethically? Distributed ethically? Ethics are things that apply to conscious creatures, not inanimate objects.
If hentai is ethical then ai porn is too.
deleted by creator
Actually, that’s not even a fair comparison. Self-driving cars still involves putting people in the hands of an AI that is physically driving a car, putting both the passengers and people on the outside in danger. The mechanics of driving a car are far too complex for an AI right now, and won’t be anywhere near “safe” for another 50 years. There are just too many edge cases, too much unpredictable behavior from humans, and roads or road signs that challenge even humans from figuring out.
Human porn involves physically bringing people over to do the act, with all of the human criminality and exploitation that could entail. AI porn removes the human element almost completely. There is nothing to exploit if no humans are physically present.
deleted by creator
One, that’s an unrealistic goal. We can’t magically replace all human-driven cars with autopilot, so there’s no point in debating in those hypotheticals. Self-driving technology will need to account for human drivers, human passengers, and human pedestrians.
Two, self-driving technology today has been a disaster of bad decisions so far. Just take Waymo and San Fransisco. Protesters can stop the cars with a stupid traffic cone. Emergency services and police over there have been dealing with Waymo cars just sitting there in the middle of the street, or worse, not honoring police blockades. This shit is not ready, and the few “self-driving” cars on the road are a public menace.
deleted by creator
Didn’t read the article. Why? Don’t care enough what the author thinks.
I’ve considered this before. IMO, it’s kind of a fruit from the poison tree situation. If all porn in the model is consensual and legal, then it actually has the capacity to significantly undercut an industry that has a lot of exploitation in it (particularly the illegal, inconsensual part), because now you can just create what you want to see when you want to see it, and that seems like it’s a lot easier and cheaper than paying a criminal or group of criminals to hurt someone. The reality, of course, is that the model almost certainly has ingested illegal or inconsensual content. Ethically speaking, that could mean that anything it produces will carry that stain with it. I think there’s a potential here to reduce net suffering, but it’s like any tool; it all depends on how people decide to use it, and I’m not sure that the bad actors won’t just completely ruin this for everyone.
In your hypothesis, it is assumed that the model is trained in some small part on unethical content, but where your logic deviates is then labeling the product of that training unethical when said exploitation has not been perpetuated or renewed. By the same judgment, ethical actions are impossible after the historical first (and “original sin” is systemic crowd control, not cultural metric).
The article seems to be mostly about imposing limitations over more taboo sex acts and uses the examples of bondage and vomit.
It does get into ethics near the end with the following section
One key difference between AI porn and traditional porn, however, is that adult content creators are human beings who can consent to what they will and will not participate in. AI isn’t conscious, ergo no consent. “It sets up a dynamic where you’re ordering the sex acts that you want, and they’re being delivered,” Lori Watson, a professor at Washington University who has written about the ethics of pornography and sex work, said of AI sexbots. “That’s not how ethical sex works.”
AI isn’t conscious, ergo no consent.
I’m so confused by this quote and hope there is something that was left out. If something isn’t conscious it seems that consent is not absent - it is inapplicable.
I challenge anyone to name a situation where consent is logically relevant to something that doesn’t have consciousness (e.g. something other than humans or animals).
Personally I don’t think it would be much less ethical than watching any other adult content. It’s put out there and people use it how they want often without being directly told “You can masturbate to this”
With AI content there probably wouldn’t be a lot of criminal issues compared to traditional adult content like human trafficking and GirlsDoPorn for example.
This is perfect 🍿 time.
What kind of popcorn? I’m a fan of kettle corn.
There’s seriously restrictions to stop you from treating an ai sexbot badly? Why are we treating these programs like they’re human?
deleted by creator
Rule of thumb- if it has to be asked….
That couldn’t be further from truth. And it should be asked more often.
Is it ethical to punish people of victimless crimes?
Is it ethical for same sex couples to get married?
Is it ethical to make golfball cores from yeeted fetuses?Now the answers to these questions should be obvious (assuming you’re not an asshole on my proprietary metric), but the question still has to be asked before a change to better can be made
The point I made which you missed, is….
- It’s a well known concept that news headlines that pose questions almost always result in a proper NO answer. So, no need for the “acktually” meme here.
Betteridge’s law (what you are referencing without knowing the name of) is mostly just a symptom of the increasing “anti-intellectual”/“anti-journalism” push by the various totalitarian regimes of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
In academia (which this is a lot closer to) it is wrong. And even among “pop journalism” it is really 50/50.
But people, like you, cite it as an excuse to not actually engage with the topic at hand while feeling a sense of moral and intellectual superiority.
lol… people like me…. So tell me- without sounding like a pompous ass, who are the “people like me” that you know so well to make such an assumption based on a few paragraphs of text?
Edit: Yeah… I thought so.
Well we have clearly an example here that is definitely not a straightforward no answer, so your meme is misplaced
lol… k.
What do you mean?
It’s a well known concept that almost every news headline that ask questions almost always should result in a NO answer.
No need to sound pretentious. Even now your comment isn’t super clear.
almost every news headline that ask questions
Do you mean ethical questions or general questions?
almost always should result in a NO answer
Do you mean writers set up a question and it typically ends with them disagreeing?
The fact that you’re calling my explanation pretentious tells me you’re looking for an argument, so I’m going to end this here. Look it up if you need an explanation.
My comment about you sounding pretentious was in regards to
It’s a well known concept
I was asking you to clarify what you were talking about and you immediately came off as demeaning and full of yourself.
I don’t know if your explanation relates to ethics and the news, consent, or clickbait. Without knowing what you are talking about I couldn’t even argue with you if I wanted to.
I did no such thing. It is a well known concept whether you are aware of it or not. Just as there are tons of things that are well known to many people, but not to me. This does not change the fact that it’s well known.
Instead of accusing people of being pretentious, you could instead just ask what they meant. You might get a better response as people aren’t obligated to respond in kindness to insults.
Instead of accusing people of being pretentious, you could instead just ask what they meant. You might get a better response as people aren’t obligated to respond in kindness to insults.
My original comment was asking “What do you mean?”. I asked someone else what you could have meant and they explained it as “It means if you have to ask whether something is ethically okay than there’s a strong chance it isn’t”. You could have just explained the expression.
Your comments in this thread like
The point I made which you missed, is….
didn’t really help my opinion of your tone. People are just trying to discuss the topic.
Either way I think my thoughts are inline with @[email protected] when it comes to that and it was in a parallel thread with you so I won’t bother rehashing it.
Ai can’t be ethical yet, asking it to something as protected as sex and dignity is going to end up with everyone involved being sued into oblivion. I don’t recommend investing in anything like that.
Based on your reference to sex as some sacred thing (rather than mashing of bodies that tends to get really sticky), I am assuming you are making the same mistake a lot of people make:
Ethics are not morality. Ethics are not the law. Ethics… are a lot more complicated than a message board post but can be summarized as a code of “rules” and thought processes an individual applies to a scenario to figure out what they are comfortable with or obligated to do.
And, in that regard, we start getting into theory regarding what “self” or intelligence is. But the rules outlined in the article about consensual acts and different “models” having different boundaries seems to pretty much be textbook ethics. And the structures around those (human moderators, flagging, etc) seem like ways to enforce that.
People do treat sex as a “sacred” thing, yes. This is pretty prevalent as a concept and is enshrined into law in many many places. Irregardless of our personal preferences.
