What? We’re talking about LLM created content, so there’s no artist or person commissioning anything. But if you’re asking for the hypothetical case of someone commissioning blackmail material at an artist (without telling them the purpose), then obviously the person who ends up doing the blackmail. I don’t see the how the artist would’ve made themselves liable unless it was very obvious that it was intended to be used for illegal purposes.
I feel like it’s going to be a challenge to find a definition of malicious most people agree on.
Someone might think it’s fine to make nudes of Captain Marvel for example because she’s a character. They don’t really care about the Brie Larson aspect.
I suppose there is the option to eliminate any kind of name based suggestions.
I personally don’t see that much of an issue of people making “nudes” of others since they’re fake anyway. I see an issue when they’re used for things like bullying, blackmail, etc. That is technically already illegal, just not well enforced for any sort of digital topic and hasn’t been for over a couple of decades now. Hence why I find the attention the LLM stuff gets exceptionally hypocritical and overblown, because non of them really cared when someone simply got cyberbullied, or blackmailed through classically edited images - let alone screamed for the outlawing of editing software or social media.
How about we instead eliminate the people who think it’s wrong or otherwise demeaning to have publicly available of yourself nude. I can’t imagine these people have any redeeming qualities anyway. And by eliminate, I mean hunt them with a crossbow.
Hard sell overall imo. But in any sort of malicious case we should punish the people behind it, not the software used to make it.
That’s tough though. Do you punish “the artist” or the person who commissioned them? Or both?
What? We’re talking about LLM created content, so there’s no artist or person commissioning anything. But if you’re asking for the hypothetical case of someone commissioning blackmail material at an artist (without telling them the purpose), then obviously the person who ends up doing the blackmail. I don’t see the how the artist would’ve made themselves liable unless it was very obvious that it was intended to be used for illegal purposes.
By artist I mean the LLM. Do you punish the LLM (or company running it) for generating it, or the person who asked it to?
I feel like it’s going to be a challenge to find a definition of malicious most people agree on.
Someone might think it’s fine to make nudes of Captain Marvel for example because she’s a character. They don’t really care about the Brie Larson aspect.
I suppose there is the option to eliminate any kind of name based suggestions.
I personally don’t see that much of an issue of people making “nudes” of others since they’re fake anyway. I see an issue when they’re used for things like bullying, blackmail, etc. That is technically already illegal, just not well enforced for any sort of digital topic and hasn’t been for over a couple of decades now. Hence why I find the attention the LLM stuff gets exceptionally hypocritical and overblown, because non of them really cared when someone simply got cyberbullied, or blackmailed through classically edited images - let alone screamed for the outlawing of editing software or social media.
How about we instead eliminate the people who think it’s wrong or otherwise demeaning to have publicly available of yourself nude. I can’t imagine these people have any redeeming qualities anyway. And by eliminate, I mean hunt them with a crossbow.
Calm down Hitler-Tankie.
Why do you support harrassing people for having nude pictures of themselves online. That behaviour is clearly criminal.