|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Where does AI content cross the line?"
Love you, too
I've been messing around with Image FX for the last few days and posting images on the AI page, mostly of scenarios I've created based off of people I've seen, but also of old scenes that are no longer available for purchase.
With that said- what are the optics of generating content inspired by stuff that IS for sale? Not for sale, obviously. More so like in the next batch of pictures I throw up, one of them would be like "this picture is inspired by So-so's scene."
The model would obviously look nothing like the model in the scene. But still. Open to discussion.
With that said- what are the optics of generating content inspired by stuff that IS for sale? Not for sale, obviously. More so like in the next batch of pictures I throw up, one of them would be like "this picture is inspired by So-so's scene."
The model would obviously look nothing like the model in the scene. But still. Open to discussion.
Personally, I'm not a fan of any A.I. content. I rather see the real thing. I don't agree with using the images of actual real people and manipulating them into wam situations. Also, I do find it kinda frustrating when searching for something on youtube and immediately 5 or 6 a.i. generated wam videos pop up.
BarryMcCockiner2 said: I've been messing around with Image FX for the last few days and posting images on the AI page, mostly of scenarios I've created based off of people I've seen, but also of old scenes that are no longer available for purchase.
With that said- what are the optics of generating content inspired by stuff that IS for sale? Not for sale, obviously. More so like in the next batch of pictures I throw up, one of them would be like "this picture is inspired by So-so's scene."
The model would obviously look nothing like the model in the scene. But still. Open to discussion.
With that said- what are the optics of generating content inspired by stuff that IS for sale? Not for sale, obviously. More so like in the next batch of pictures I throw up, one of them would be like "this picture is inspired by So-so's scene."
The model would obviously look nothing like the model in the scene. But still. Open to discussion.
A pretty clear line for me would be putting people in fake situations they're not actually in, especially celebrities. There's a difference between fantasy and creating sexual/fetish content and involving someone without their consent. So, to use AI to put [insert celebrity here] or [insert coworker here] into a fetish video is obviously a big red flag. That's not a new issue, though -- face swap technology has been around awhile and has been used to put celebrities into WAM videos.
The other one I was thinking about would be using AI to replicate someone else's content, so if we had a sort of AI Slapstickstuff that was making near-duplicates of Slapstickstuff videos. The problem is that that's exactly what AI is supposed to do -- duplicate the content of others, often trained upon and ingested without the consent of their creators. The systems we see now are built on some really problematic copyright issues, ethically, so when I saw making a second-rate Slapstickstuff via AI is a problem, all of it really is duplicating someone else's content that's already out there, more or less.
JazzTalker said:
A pretty clear line for me would be putting people in fake situations they're not actually in, especially celebrities. There's a difference between fantasy and creating sexual/fetish content and involving someone without their consent. So, to use AI to put [insert celebrity here] or [insert coworker here] into a fetish video is obviously a big red flag. That's not a new issue, though -- face swap technology has been around awhile and has been used to put celebrities into WAM videos.
The other one I was thinking about would be using AI to replicate someone else's content, so if we had a sort of AI Slapstickstuff that was making near-duplicates of Slapstickstuff videos. The problem is that that's exactly what AI is supposed to do -- duplicate the content of others, often trained upon and ingested without the consent of their creators. The systems we see now are built on some really problematic copyright issues, ethically, so when I saw making a second-rate Slapstickstuff via AI is a problem, all of it really is duplicating someone else's content that's already out there, more or less.
BarryMcCockiner2 said: I've been messing around with Image FX for the last few days and posting images on the AI page, mostly of scenarios I've created based off of people I've seen, but also of old scenes that are no longer available for purchase.
With that said- what are the optics of generating content inspired by stuff that IS for sale? Not for sale, obviously. More so like in the next batch of pictures I throw up, one of them would be like "this picture is inspired by So-so's scene."
The model would obviously look nothing like the model in the scene. But still. Open to discussion.
With that said- what are the optics of generating content inspired by stuff that IS for sale? Not for sale, obviously. More so like in the next batch of pictures I throw up, one of them would be like "this picture is inspired by So-so's scene."
The model would obviously look nothing like the model in the scene. But still. Open to discussion.
A pretty clear line for me would be putting people in fake situations they're not actually in, especially celebrities. There's a difference between fantasy and creating sexual/fetish content and involving someone without their consent. So, to use AI to put [insert celebrity here] or [insert coworker here] into a fetish video is obviously a big red flag. That's not a new issue, though -- face swap technology has been around awhile and has been used to put celebrities into WAM videos.
The other one I was thinking about would be using AI to replicate someone else's content, so if we had a sort of AI Slapstickstuff that was making near-duplicates of Slapstickstuff videos. The problem is that that's exactly what AI is supposed to do -- duplicate the content of others, often trained upon and ingested without the consent of their creators. The systems we see now are built on some really problematic copyright issues, ethically, so when I saw making a second-rate Slapstickstuff via AI is a problem, all of it really is duplicating someone else's content that's already out there, more or less.
Agree with both of your points- and as much as I'd like to think there's a difference between, say, asking AI to generate an image of a woman that looks nothing like my neighbor's hot wife but has a similar hair color and looks the same age as her and making and making an AI slime scene with a picture of my fiancée and posting it on here without her knowing (which I would never do).
I'm not sure where the line is crossed. Did you want longitude and latitude?
Robby
Robby
My problem with AI is that those channels are starting to flood youtube where you used to be able to find lots of great clips. Now it's 99% fake nonsense of some guy's WAM fantasies. It's fine if you want to make that for yourself, but keep it to yourself. Just my opinion on the matter.
Get slimed at least once in your life!
I would think you'd have to work pretty hard to violate some perceived infringement when it comes to wam. "Pretty girl hit in the face with a pie", or "Bitchy patron gets the sliming they deserve" are pretty ancient, pretty common setups. I suppose there might be some huffiness if you recreate something shot-by-shot, line by brilliantly-wordsmithed-line, but why would anyone bother to put in that much work? Tempest in a teapot, imo.
I'd prefer seeing a poor real shoot over the "perfect" AI shoot. AI is just stale yet too clinically clean. I like the idea that someone has gone to the trouble to prep even the littlest amount of mess. You can't recreate the actual reactions of proper mess.
Thank you all for your input!
I wound up taking the post down, for a variety of reasons. Privacy, writers block, and partially because I have a very addictive personality and was finding myself spending way too much time on my phone creating these scenes. Figured it would be best to just remove it.
I wound up taking the post down, for a variety of reasons. Privacy, writers block, and partially because I have a very addictive personality and was finding myself spending way too much time on my phone creating these scenes. Figured it would be best to just remove it.
Not in a WAM context, but I have seen several posts recently where a male ice dancer is carressing his partner's "undercarriage" during a lift in a way that would not be seen on the competioin rink.
Whilst it may be vaguely amusing for the casual onlooker, it must be distressing for the couple involved. Indeed it may be detrimental to their careers.
Whilst it may be vaguely amusing for the casual onlooker, it must be distressing for the couple involved. Indeed it may be detrimental to their careers.
That day is already here, at least for some....
...Or rather, a guy last night posted what he called an "amazing" excerpt from the 2025 reboot of Guerreros Colombia, a Latin American show, and asked if anyone had the longer clip. Unfortunately, there IS no 2025 reboot of this now-cancelled show, and I responded that what he'd found was actually an AI fake.
And I guess he deleted the post out of his anger at being duped. Which... fair, but it WAS a good fake, to the point that I spent a few minutes Googling around for any evidence that the clip might actually be real before posting my response.
...Or rather, a guy last night posted what he called an "amazing" excerpt from the 2025 reboot of Guerreros Colombia, a Latin American show, and asked if anyone had the longer clip. Unfortunately, there IS no 2025 reboot of this now-cancelled show, and I responded that what he'd found was actually an AI fake.
And I guess he deleted the post out of his anger at being duped. Which... fair, but it WAS a good fake, to the point that I spent a few minutes Googling around for any evidence that the clip might actually be real before posting my response.
AI content has already crossed so many lines so often that people are not even bothering to draw lines anymore. Deep fakes: check. SPAM: check. Scams: check.
But what's most fascinating/frustrating to me is that the quality of the content has hit a HARD plateau where even the good stuff, if you zoom out and think objectively, still looks like hot garbage. Sure the hands and teeth have been fixed, but the content still lives in a place of soulless banality that it cannot crawl out of. And the creators of this content are still flooding the internet with this uninspired same-note crap. Even the gooniest gooners are having enough of it.
I'm ashamed that I started to buy into the "It'S gOnNa Be InDeStInGuIsHaBlE!" hype earlier this year. There's still a lot of work to do and the companies with the deepest pockets aren't going to invest in giving us better AI fetish porn. At this point the biggest line that AI content has crossed is the line of annoyance. It's all so tiring. Give us real human talent or GTFO.
But what's most fascinating/frustrating to me is that the quality of the content has hit a HARD plateau where even the good stuff, if you zoom out and think objectively, still looks like hot garbage. Sure the hands and teeth have been fixed, but the content still lives in a place of soulless banality that it cannot crawl out of. And the creators of this content are still flooding the internet with this uninspired same-note crap. Even the gooniest gooners are having enough of it.
I'm ashamed that I started to buy into the "It'S gOnNa Be InDeStInGuIsHaBlE!" hype earlier this year. There's still a lot of work to do and the companies with the deepest pockets aren't going to invest in giving us better AI fetish porn. At this point the biggest line that AI content has crossed is the line of annoyance. It's all so tiring. Give us real human talent or GTFO.
Check out Project 20M on IG! @Project20M
Where I see a real danger is when a famous person or politician is in a video either promoting or trashing another prominent politician, such as Mr. Trump. The voice and face are often very realistic and the person's image is tarnished by all who think they actually said what was in the AI video. Suddenly people start to hate or support the person who actually never said what we see and hear, and usually isn't even aware of its existence.
I think that ALL AI content must be identified as such. At least we would know what the hell we are looking at.
As for WAM, it can come close, but I prefer the video not to try and copy someone else's work. If anything, it gives us an opportunity to go wild in our imaginations to create a scenario that might be impossible to do in real life, due to costs or other reasons. I did an AI video about a small city flooded by mud, where nobody gets hurt and everyone seems to enjoy it. This would not be possible in real life. But using AI to copy existing producers' work or imitate actual people makes little sense to me.
I think that ALL AI content must be identified as such. At least we would know what the hell we are looking at.
As for WAM, it can come close, but I prefer the video not to try and copy someone else's work. If anything, it gives us an opportunity to go wild in our imaginations to create a scenario that might be impossible to do in real life, due to costs or other reasons. I did an AI video about a small city flooded by mud, where nobody gets hurt and everyone seems to enjoy it. This would not be possible in real life. But using AI to copy existing producers' work or imitate actual people makes little sense to me.
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In