|
Neo Rasa posted:I think pretty soon deepfake is just going to be the general term for "my voice/face was impersonated" even for stuff like a static photoshopped image. Better than claiming it's gaslighting I suppose.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I think pretty soon deepfake is just going to be the general term for "my voice/face was impersonated" even for stuff like a static photoshopped image. Well, what does deepfake mean? other than really good fake.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 13:54
|
|
|
It’s not about the depth of your fake, but the width
dpkg chopra fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Mar 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 13:58
|
|
|
I bet we will see some dumb scifi movie calling clones deepfakes
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 13:59
|
|
|
Face Off 2 is gunna be great!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
withoutclass posted:Face Off 2 is gunna be great! Fake/Off
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:porn I’ve checked out a few custom CoreML models on Huggingface, and some of them are decidedly porny. But while I was massaging prompts and testing with a low iteration count, I found that a few of them generate some extremely suspicious poo poo. poo poo that makes you have to exclude «kid» and «nudity» etc. I worry that some of these models (they are among the most popular) are trained on stacks upon stacks of underage porn or poo poo like those Instagram honeypots with (technically legal but extremely wrong) kid «models» Or if some words in the prompts being dogwhistles in that sort of milieu One model notoriously switched to only displaying pre-teen kids if I included «budoir photography» in the prompt (I like erotica shut up) which is suspicious rear end all hell. I’d research this more but… I need eye bleach and won’t touch those models again anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
F4rt5 posted:One model notoriously switched to only displaying pre-teen kids if I included «budoir photography» in the prompt (I like erotica shut up) which is suspicious rear end all hell.. can we give you poo poo for your spelling
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
withoutclass posted:Face Off 2 is gunna be great! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:You’re right, deepfake porn is probably going to be a thing if it isn’t already. But it’s going to be relegated to the dark corners of the internet much in the same way CSAM is, and if they can pass laws for those types of contents I’m sure they can regulate deepfake porn under similar frameworks. Going to be? It's BEEN a thing for a long time dude and they're convincing. And that's been with outdated deepfake algo's that took a lot of computer power, time, or just blind luck. It's not hard to find and it's not relegated to "the deep web" either. Just look at 4chan and other chans. They have enough people just doing this out of volition of their own perverse desires. And sadly we're also past the point of "well it'll only run on crypto" being an actual disadvantage for these fuckos. The bigger problem with this is that production studios fundamentally want the same thing that the porn addicts want when it comes to these models. They want a ChatGPT that they can type in a script and direction notes into and receive a fully featured video back. Just barely convincing enough even because then they can farm it out to an effects company like they already do to refine it. And no amount of attempting to "restrict" such a tool from producing porn will work simply because the tool itself cannot fundamentally understand the difference between making "Will Smith eat spaghetti" and making "Scarlet Johansson do porn". You can restrict inputs, but those features sit on top of the ML model, they're not within it. In the same way that open source ML art models all started with restricting porn inputs, it only took a tiny bit of time before some dude took that base model and just removed those input flags. Even trying to ensure that such material is not included in the training data is meaningless because these models are self referential. Once someone finally convinces a totally vanilla ML model to produce something close enough to porn, it's just a matter of continuing to reiterate on that output and boom. Porn Bot. Even worse, as f4rt5 pointed out, even keeping those content flags in may still produce the offending material based on just how the model ended up interpreting it's own training data. Pandora's box is open and there's no going back without a Butlerian Jihad. Crain fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Mar 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:can we give you poo poo for your spelling I think for that particular word you should rather blame the French (Academy?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
Crain posted:. And the issue is, they can't have this, because changing the copyright law to be that way would mean endless copyright trolling and bring any commerce using copyright to a halt and folks are realizing both that, and that they're gonna have to get that poo poo out of their work chains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Better than claiming it's gaslighting I suppose. we should use AI to predict the next hot new buzz word.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:And the issue is, they can't have this, because changing the copyright law to be that way would mean endless copyright trolling and bring any commerce using copyright to a halt and folks are realizing both that, and that they're gonna have to get that poo poo out of their work chains. They can't have this yet. Right now that reality is hanging on one legal decision stating that ML models as they are trained currently, and probably specifically the ones available now that are known to have taken copyrighted works for training sets, cannot produce copyrightable products. But as we should all be familiar with by now, when capital comes up against something that tells them they can't do something, they find a way through, around, or simply remove that obstacle. Look at Disney and the current public domain and copyright laws. Copyright is temporary, even if it does last for over a hundred years with their efforts so far, but Trademarks are forever. Steamboat Willy entering the Public Domain? Sure, but the key scene, likeness, and audio of that original Mickey Mouse is now a Trademarked Walt Disney Studios logo. You can't use it. If technology exists that will save film studios literally BILLIONS of dollars a year in production costs, they will find a way to make it copyrightable. It will almost certainly be a janky, hypocritical, nonsense ruling that boils down to "It works for Disney/Sony/Big Player this way, and not for anyone else", but it will be A law. That's all they care about. I keep using Disney as short hand but they're the easiest target and for good reason. There's no reason Disney can't fund a ruling that says while generic ML models trained on mass collected training sets aren't copyrightable, their bespoke version trained ONLY on their own copyrighted, trademarked, wholly owned and created proprietary media content is copyrightable. The average person can't generate enough data for a training set to do much of anything. However, a massive media company that already has a hundred year backlog of movies, comics, live action, audio, music, etc doesn't need to create a loving thing. Disney can just pump their own back catalog, along with anything not publicly released like cut content, deleted scenes, and test footage, into an ML model and make a DisneyGPT that can churn out a thousand Lady and the Tramp movies a year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
What would be the legality of having or creating AI generated CP?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
Alterian posted:What would be the legality of having or creating AI generated CP? It'll almost certainly depend on where you're located, with resulting legality ranging from "gently caress no you can't have that" [e.g., countries that ban hentai with underage characters, where no real person was exploited but the content remains CP]", to whatever weird-rear end hellworld version happens elsewhere, when people start arguing about whether illegal training data that generates someone who doesn't exist but would be illegal if they did, still constitutes illegal media. For ultimate hellworld answer, let each US state decide for themselves.  (Personally? Make it all illegal, as well as content pretending to be illegal, barely-legal, clearly-legal but in a schoolkid outfit, anything with the word 'daddy' in it, and in fact everything under the age of 65. You can watch porn involving people 65+. We will then use this new demand to justify cutting social security and medicare.) Sundae fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Mar 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Crain posted:They can't have this yet. Right now that reality is hanging on one legal decision stating that ML models as they are trained currently, and probably specifically the ones available now that are known to have taken copyrighted works for training sets, cannot produce copyrightable products. The Mouse is unlikely to try this on account of the fact that having to cutdown someone doing the Clarkesworld thing, but with copyright trolling constantly would destroy the profits. Disney went to a lot of work to create the current copyright milieu to their liking, and opening that up opens them to both competition from tech venture capital and constant harassment. It's not happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
Sundae posted:... What's 65 in dog years? I recall SCOTUS ruled that fake CP becomes actual CP when it's difficult to tell the difference. Basically, "it could be generated" can't get you out of anything. I expect there to eventually be laws about provably generated but real-seeming in a vacuum material because that's, like, the easiest tough on crime win ever. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Mar 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Yikes. After reading some of this, I finally understand why those people signed the letter calling for a "pause".
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 21:36
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:What's 65 in dog years? As long as the dog isn't wearing a school uniform, you're safe. I think I'm in agreement with you on those laws being the eventual end state for places that don't blanket-ban 'illegal-like' content. If there was already a SCOTUS ruling on when fake becomes actual, that would seem like the path of least resistance for the laws to come into existence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 21:39
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:The Mouse is unlikely to try this on account of the fact that having to cutdown someone doing the Clarkesworld thing, but with copyright trolling constantly would destroy the profits. Disney went to a lot of work to create the current copyright milieu to their liking, and opening that up opens them to both competition from tech venture capital and constant harassment. It's not happening. Eehhhhhh, it's already happening, and will continue on happening with or without them. "Will Smith eating spaghetti" shows that. The technology is out there and there's no putting it back. Not allowing the work to be copyrighted is a weak, dollar store band-aid on that issue. Hell, it's not even a band-aid. There are entire segments of the economy that hinge on flagrantly violating copyright and trademark law for fast sales and then just cutting and running if/when the C&Ds roll in. I think you're really, really underestimating how much the big studios want this technology, and how much they've already invested in it. (loving again) Disney is already deep in developing ML models for their content. They've already used it in their shows. They deepfaked Young Luke in multiple episodes of the Mandalorian. They bought James Earl Jones' rendition of Darth Vader and created ML models for the Obi-Wan series so that voice can forever be theirs and associated with the character. The James Dean estate sold his likeness for making a new movie for him to star in. This. Is. Already. Happening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
You guys are talking about deepfakes in general but I thought the discussion was about deepfake porn? There is no legitimate studio, payment processor, webhost, etc, that is going to go anywhere near deepfake porn of real people who have not consented (ie, are a porn model/actor).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:You guys are talking about deepfakes in general but I thought the discussion was about deepfake porn? There is no legitimate studio, payment processor, webhost, etc, that is going to go anywhere near deepfake porn of real people who have not consented (ie, are a porn model/actor). Porn was brought up as an answer to "What are people even going to use this for" RE: the Spaghetti Smith video. Which while not wrong, is itself short sighted and obvious. Everything is used for porn. Payment processors, webhosts, etc not wanting to touch touch deepfake porn has, unfortunately, gently caress all to do with preventing it from being a thing. (Correction: It will prevent it from being a commercial thing) It's already a thing. It's been a thing. The people making it don't give two shits about being paid for it. It's all a bunch of degens from 4chan-likes burning out their GPUs because they just simple must have whatever extremely niche thing they're into, and then sharing it. My point on that was that, in addition to the above, you're not going to prevent AI porn because there is functionally no difference between making an AI create "Will Smith eating spaghetti" and whatever specific porn thing. If you have a tool that can create the former, it will be able to create the latter. So while "VISA won't work with a company that creates AI porn" is completely valid and true, it will do absolutely nothing to prevent it because you have people creating tools for full AI video generation (who aren't trying to make said tool explicitly for the purposes of ai porn). People are just going to take "MovieGPT" if and/or when it exists and train it to make porn after the fact and release that. Crain fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Mar 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
Even if they were required to do so, how would porn websites even catch deepfake porn? It’s one thing for Visa and whoever to say they won’t process payments for deepfake porn; it’s another thing to police it at scale. Right now the deepfake still kinda suck but it’ll eventually reach a stage where you need digital forensics to figure things out. I think we’re hurtling towards an internet where user content generation will be gated by KYC or other types of personal identification. Anonymity and accessible, high-quality generative AI are a tinderbox.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
Crain posted:Eehhhhhh, it's already happening, and will continue on happening with or without them. "Will Smith eating spaghetti" shows that. The technology is out there and there's no putting it back. Not allowing the work to be copyrighted is a weak, dollar store band-aid on that issue. It really isn't, because it subtracts the big money and R&D and puts it on defense. Yes, the cheap would help disney, but it would help both folks who gently caress with them and actual competition, and they like either of those less. And with the ability to spam garbo, it would not be possible to operate a copyright system. StratGoatCom fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Mar 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:It really isn't, because it subtracts the big money and R&D and puts it on defense. Did you ignore the part about them already using AI? It seems like you're ignoring that part. They're already using it, and have gone on record about their intentions to keep using it and developing it further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Crain posted:Did you ignore the part about them already using AI? It seems like you're ignoring that part. They're already using it, and have gone on record about their intentions to keep using it and developing it further. Voice poo poo is not protected, and it's an elaboration of green screen techniques. They're not gonna cross the rubicon of full flesh AI gen for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
I think there's a big gap between "they're already using generative tech to enhance their movies and maintain famous character faces/voices" and "they want AIs to do the entire movie for them".Crain posted:The bigger problem with this is that production studios fundamentally want the same thing that the porn addicts want when it comes to these models. They want a ChatGPT that they can type in a script and direction notes into and receive a fully featured video back. I don't think production studios actually want that, because it would effectively render them obsolete. I can understand them wanting to cut the costs of production, but if they cut the costs all the way to "basically zero" then they open themselves up to competition from every ideas guy on the planet. It's in their interests to keep movie production somewhat resource-intensive, because they have a lot of resources and can therefore dominate the industry. If they cut the cost of making movies too much, that opens up a lot of competition from people who previously didn't have the budget to compete with them on quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
It's no different. It's ML generation, and they have already entered the waters my dude. They have talked about explicitly using deepfake technology, not just green screen effects or traditional cgi. They have talked about putting more efforts into further developing AI models. At best your point is a matter of exactly where that line falls in a grey zone. But Disney, much less other production companies, are saying and doing the opposite of what you're professing. Also, why are we assuming that companies won't take the shortsighted, profit now, option? What in the last 20 years of late stage capitalism has made anyone here think "this fully profit driven entity will choose the prudent, costly, course of action"? Crain fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Mar 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think there's a big gap between "they're already using generative tech to enhance their movies and maintain famous character faces/voices" and "they want AIs to do the entire movie for them". Yes, and they're gonna be shy moving past these lines no matter what they say, because it's very risky waters for copyright. Also, in the rumblings about a moveback from AI art in concept stuff and the like that I heard on the grapevine, while the exact folks who might be pulling back weren't specifically named for NDA reasons, Marvel is an explicit possiblity for one of then,
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:someone doing the Clarkesworld thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 02:55
|
|
|
Shrecknet posted:what is "the Clarkesworld thing" Unless there's something new, submissions had to be closed because some get rich quick fucks have been telling people to generate nonsense stories using ChatGPT and similar and spam every publication like that that's accepting submissions on the chance it works by sheer volume. It's a portrait of things to come for anybody else doing anything even remotely similar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Unless there's something new, submissions had to be closed because some get rich quick fucks have been telling people to generate nonsense stories using ChatGPT and similar and spam every publication like that that's accepting submissions on the chance it works by sheer volume. It's a portrait of things to come for anybody else doing anything even remotely similar. Allowing AI copyright would basically hybridize this with existing copyright trolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
I asked in the AI thread but how long before ChatGPT and similar out web developers, programmers, etc. out of work?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 03:23
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I asked in the AI thread but how long before ChatGPT and similar out web developers, programmers, etc. out of work? For anything you have to copyright, it can't, not if you wanna defend it, also, it will make absolute shite.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 03:27
|
|
|
I'd loving love to see an example of AI-generated programming actually being put in action.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 03:36
|
|
|
getting away from the computer gen porn or deepfakes or even extreme cursed vile stuff like computer gen CSAM, I still think account creation fees and very small submission fees would help. like we're still operating under the model that the whole internet and everything should be free and as friction free as possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:getting away from the computer gen porn or deepfakes or even extreme cursed vile stuff like computer gen CSAM, I still think account creation fees and very small submission fees would help. Not me, I want everything to be more difficult and expensive for no reason.i
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
Bad things should be expensive, good things should be free. Spamming me should cost $1000 per email, for example.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
PhazonLink posted:getting away from the computer gen porn or deepfakes or even extreme cursed vile stuff like computer gen CSAM, I still think account creation fees and very small submission fees would help. We also need to bring down the hammer on these scraped models. They're full of every sort of illegal from infringing to privacy to flatly illegal poo poo and need to be dealt with. LAION seems to have flagrantly violated German and EU info laws and something will have be done there if those are to be credible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2023 03:57
|
|