Thank you all so far for the discussion. I started messing around with AI generated content yesterday, and was shocked at how easy it was to create fairly convincing images of celebrities as a beginner. I excitedly posted a handful of early attempts. However, upon further reflection I'm not yet sure that I'm fine with putting those images out into the world, even if the celebs were just wearing evening gowns in water, no more risque than one might find on the cover of a magazine.
I have created a few generic "beautiful woman" images; one in particular legitimately fools me despite me knowing it is AI generated. In that instance, I'm wrestling with whether it is ok to share the image, not knowing exactly how the algorithm works and how much work the AI did, and what kind of source material may have been used. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could inform me.
I must admit it is quite exciting as a longtime consumer to finally have the opportunity to create content, and with the ability to tailor your images to your own preferences. I look forward to playing with these tools, I'm still not sure where I personally stand on all of the issues involved yet, but I definitely feel the community should tread carefully until the ramifications are fully understood. Looking forward to continued discussion on the issue.
Lavette said: Thank you all so far for the discussion. I started messing around with AI generated content yesterday, and was shocked at how easy it was to create fairly convincing images of celebrities as a beginner. I excitedly posted a handful of early attempts. However, upon further reflection I'm not yet sure that I'm fine with putting those images out into the world, even if the celebs were just wearing evening gowns in water, no more risque than one might find on the cover of a magazine.
I have created a few generic "beautiful woman" images; one in particular legitimately fools me despite me knowing it is AI generated. In that instance, I'm wrestling with whether it is ok to share the image, not knowing exactly how the algorithm works and how much work the AI did, and what kind of source material may have been used. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could inform me.
I must admit it is quite exciting as a longtime consumer to finally have the opportunity to create content, and with the ability to tailor your images to your own preferences. I look forward to playing with these tools, I'm still not sure where I personally stand on all of the issues involved yet, but I definitely feel the community should tread carefully until the ramifications are fully understood. Looking forward to continued discussion on the issue.
Good points Lavette. I was in the same situation. I was a long time lurker and consumer. I generated some images of celebs which I thought about sharing because posting youtube videos or images of celebs have been a recurring theme here. It was the first time I felt like I had anything worth sharing.
It didn't seem so bad to post modest images of celebrities at first.
Since a photo resembling Emma Watson was used in this thread, I am going to post another one that I generated where she is meant to be an adult. How old is Emma Watson in this photo? This is a huge problem for me because I know the data was trained on all of the photos of her. So then we need to make up rules on which celebs are acceptable and which ones are not. Also what kind of clothing could they be wearing before it becomes too sexual? For actors who have done nude scenes, is nudity of them allowed if their privates are not exposed?
Based on the celeb posts get thousands of views, like the one I mentioned with 8K views and 84 comments, there is demand for it. It seems wrong to take advantage of that though. Maybe private communities will form for generating and sharing this content.
The amount of generated content being posted could grow exponentially. Unrelated to the celeb topic (1), I wanted to add some points for reasons to not ban all AI gererated images (topic 7):
* It could encourage VIP subscriptions to download zips of large generated sets of images. * It could gain some popularity and bring new users. * It could allow people to create images to express what they are interested in. * It could allow people to create a profile picture which represents their interests. * It could be used to express ideas for customs. * It could be used in the future for a WAM Party where it is realized with images.
On topic #6, regarding how young the character looks in the generated image:
A user posted some pictures of clothed adult Asian women holding pies, smiling, with the words "pie me" on their shirt. I saw the preview thumbnails. This was in the main messy forum. The user deleted the thread after receiving replies with a comment regarding the age of the women characters in the images. I did not see the replies. I saw this was the user's first post. The user deleted their account or went private. I will not link the thread or user in case the user wants to remain private. This is just an example of an interaction that can happen on this forum regarding topic #6.
If the user posted in this group, I probably would have noticed it from a notification sooner and given it feedback. The thumbnails looked pretty good and it incorporated text which I have not seen before.
I don't think any new rule needs to be added for #6. The approval, report, and mod system should work. I don't have much advice for how else to deal with this. Users who share generated images have to be mindful of the reactions, and aware that it can be reported. If the generated images you are sharing are meant to be 18 year old adult women, you may want to include that in the description in the post along with the keywords used in the prompt used to get the result. It is probably better for people to avoid using terms or models that target 18 or 19 and stick with target ages in 20's or 30's.
9/6/23, 2:37pm: This post won't bump the thread to the top.
Just wanted to update yall on where we are currently with the TOS. It'll continue to evolve
---
Deep Fakes and Artificial Intelligence
If you upload content that is photorealistic but completely generated or fake, that must be mentioned in an accompanying description or caption (a formal tagging and filtering system will replace this requirement later). The actual technology used to generate the content does not matter, whether it's AI, Photoshop, or a really skilled human artist.
If you upload content that features a real person but has been generated or altered to place them realistically into a fantasy scenario, that person must be you, your model, or someone from whom you've gotten consent to use their likeness for this purpose. The fact that it's a deep fake must be mentioned in an accompanying description or caption. We will need to remove any content that we feel may be using a person's likeness without their consent.
Photorealistic generated and altered content is subject to the same rules as natural content: Copyright laws still apply, subjects must be clearly portrayed as adults, and if the content depicts any nudity, the uploader must have a verified account.
Our rules about deep fakes will evolve as our community continues to discuss the morals and consequences of using this technology.
Messmaster said: Just wanted to update yall on where we are currently with the TOS. It'll continue to evolve
---
Deep Fakes and Artificial Intelligence
If you upload content that is photorealistic but completely generated or fake, that must be mentioned in an accompanying description or caption (a formal tagging and filtering system will replace this requirement later). The actual technology used to generate the content does not matter, whether it's AI, Photoshop, or a really skilled human artist.
If you upload content that features a real person but has been generated or altered to place them realistically into a fantasy scenario, that person must be you, your model, or someone from whom you've gotten consent to use their likeness for this purpose. The fact that it's a deep fake must be mentioned in an accompanying description or caption. We will need to remove any content that we feel may be using a person's likeness without their consent.
Photorealistic generated and altered content is subject to the same rules as natural content: Copyright laws still apply, subjects must be clearly portrayed as adults, and if the content depicts any nudity, the uploader must have a verified account.
Our rules about deep fakes will evolve as our community continues to discuss the morals and consequences of using this technology.
This is perfect! Thank you. People will recognize how important consent and privacy is, and that it does not matter whether or not the image is generated, photoshopped, or real.
I was imagining a worse case scenario where it was allowed and it shows that consent is not important, producers have a strike, and dozens of producers close their stores out of protest. There are a lot of people who would desire to see real people in generated images, but this choice seems better for this site. There are other sites where people can post these images at their own risk of being sued when various state laws are created.
One suggestion I have is for people, like me, who have a generated profile picture. It might be nice to mention that in the profile description.
Messmaster said: Just wanted to update yall on where we are currently with the TOS. It'll continue to evolve
---
Deep Fakes and Artificial Intelligence
If you upload content that is photorealistic but completely generated or fake, that must be mentioned in an accompanying description or caption (a formal tagging and filtering system will replace this requirement later). The actual technology used to generate the content does not matter, whether it's AI, Photoshop, or a really skilled human artist.
If you upload content that features a real person but has been generated or altered to place them realistically into a fantasy scenario, that person must be you, your model, or someone from whom you've gotten consent to use their likeness for this purpose. The fact that it's a deep fake must be mentioned in an accompanying description or caption. We will need to remove any content that we feel may be using a person's likeness without their consent.
Photorealistic generated and altered content is subject to the same rules as natural content: Copyright laws still apply, subjects must be clearly portrayed as adults, and if the content depicts any nudity, the uploader must have a verified account.
Our rules about deep fakes will evolve as our community continues to discuss the morals and consequences of using this technology.
I think these ToS rules are absolutely fine for where things stand, particularly with regard to images featuring real people. Many thanks to MM and all those who are contributing to this thread.