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
      4
      ·
      11 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
        0
        ·
        11 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
            0
            ·
            11 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.

            • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 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

                • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

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

                  Emphasis mine. The context clues make the intended meaning pretty obvious

            • olorin99@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 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
              1
              ·
              11 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
                0
                ·
                11 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.

                  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Unhealthy things should be forbidden? Even if they were, this is drifting off of the subject of AI art.

        • Gamma@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

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