Comment

Comment by dbg31415

Hey, so not trying to troll... I feel like that has to be stated when talking about this stuff.

I get that weaponizing revenge porn someone sent you can be damaging.

But I don't get what this law is trying to do.

Is Hustler v. Falwell still valid?

> In the case, Hustler magazine ran a full-page parody ad against televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr., depicting him as an incestuous drunk who had sex with his mother in an outhouse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

As long as it's labeled "AI Generated" in the corner, does that make it OK?

What if a person wanted to generate porn of Eva Braun & Adolf Hitler -- who knows, just for the shock value... would that be banned? Even if it's a snuff film?

I can think of a bunch of things that aren't full on traditional porn... can I still make a video of Katy Perry eating a banana? Can I show Hugh Jackman making out with John C. McGinley (as Dr. Cox, of course)? Or what if I wanted a video of Elizabeth Hurley doing ASMR in a bikini, or in a burqa?

Falls back to, "What's porn, anyway?" is it still "I know it when I see it?" / "Anything that gives a judge an erection?" Or is it anything involving using AI to draw people? I make a drawing on Civitai... can someone come up and say, "That looks like my great aunt Trudy, take it down now!"

We've had Photoshop forever... I get that AI is maybe (emphasis on maybe) a bit more realistic than Photoshop. But to me, a law like this feels like it'll have unintended and far reaching connotations for how we use AI to create scenes from each of our own vivid and unique imaginations.

parent dbg31415 2 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton