Is anyone using AI to generate erotic/explicit images?

[PozTalkAuthor]

Not images but I have tried to guide the robot to write some texts from HIV virus's point of view. 

It mostly replied "a virus doesn't talk or have feelings" and my answer has been "you don't know mine!" 

[hntnhole]

I'm not sure I 'get it' regarding A.I. 

Sure, a couple of those - well - depictions? - were quite well done, a couple weren't, but what's the goal here?  Produce phony porn?  Elevate the male physique beyond almost anyone's ability to achieve it?  Challenge Michelangelo?  Pictures can't fuck, porn actors can and do.  Maybe a handful of us here on BZ actually do look like gods ... and the rest of us don't.  Are we supposed to feel 'less-than' because we don't look like a sex-god?  

Perfection is alright I guess, but I'd rather fuck regular guys - like me.  

[PozTalkAuthor]

Perfection simply doesn't exist! I'm a computer worker so I'm into those new technologies and I'm not scared by them at all - not less scared than I am of a knife, a car, or a bottle of alcohol placed near a lighter when they are just over the table. Their simple existence is not enough to be scared about. In other words, humans scare me the most! 

AI can help, or harm, depending on who use it and how. If someone creates images similar to divinity, well, let's keep it as it is: well or bad made art. Even texts, it's the same: if you break their "standards" they simply go "mad"! 

I use them just to brainstorm texts or ,to find SEO keywords and, even in that case, I'm quite "choosy" so I have needs that AI can satisfy just 20 percent, or 30 maximum. 

I also tried roleplay (from display name and profile you can even understand which one) and it said I'm IMMORAL! 

It's not programmed for adult content! But, as I said, let's keep it for what it can help us with! 

I have had the opportunity to learn about a service which is being built as an aid for blind people -describe pictures and places-; my closest friend is blind and I am gladly studying these techs with her. Including image creation, she had the illusion "wow I finally might create my own images just explaining them by text"...

What shits it created for her! And also image describer is still not too mature. So I joked with her, saying "my eyes are still needed to help you along, you'll not set free from me too soon". 

It's promising though; on the other side, despite not scaring me, I consider it not a suitable aid for people with low self-esteem or some mental vulnerabilities. It would be like giving a weapon to a child... We all know what might happen there. 

Copying Michelangelo, Leonardo, whoever artist? Simply impossible! 

I've read a couple articles where they claimed "AI cover: Freddie Mercury sings 'yesterday' by Beatles". I don't know where they hear Freddie in that crap, even when he was seriously ill he couldn't sing so awfully. It's not similar at all! And, when I say "even when he was ill" I'm not exaggerating or supposing, I'm talking seriously. Listen to "mother love", that's his very last recorded song, on 22nd May 1991. He passed away 24th November of same year. And on 30th May he recorded "these are the days of our lives" and we can see how sick he was in the video poor man! 

So, various illusion vendors have failed in choosing their customer, with me.

[ErosWired]

3 minutes ago, PozTalkAuthor said:

It's not programmed for adult content!

Yet. But give them another 10 minutes. The Internet wasn’t designed for adult content either. For that matter, the cucumber did not evolve its form for use as a dildo. Any technology that can be turned to the furtherance of sex, I suspect, has been in some way.

[SomewhereonNeptune]

22 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Out of curiosity, why would you want this? Like every other creative endeavor potentially under threat economically from the potential of AI content generation, this seems like a way to marginalize actual human beings trying to make income from producing genuine depictions of genuine human beings, and can’t be a good thing for the industry…

Frankly, now that Pandora’s box of smut has been opened, I don’t know that it can be shut, but is this really what we want?

Like everything else, people won’t realize how wrong it’s all gone until it’s far too late and they try to swing the pendulum back the other way. 

If guys are happy wanking to non-existent idyllic stereotypes created by programming, someone will figure out how to make money with it. By the same token, people are also thrilled when they can get plastic this-or-that or cheap shit made in China by slave labor versus the more expensive (and enduring) alternatives that are real, have quality, or won’t break after a few uses…until they lament how cheap that crap is or why people no longer have jobs in their country because they shipped those to cheaper labor pools.

There’s a difference between liking something or settling for it versus genuine satisfaction. Happy wanking?

[Opensesame]

I wonder if depicting AI underage, etc. will be considered legal since a real person, etc. isn’t being victimized. Like murdering people in video games isn’t killing anybody.

[ErosWired]

3 hours ago, Opensesame said:

I wonder if depicting AI underage, etc. will be considered legal since a real person, etc. isn’t being victimized. Like murdering people in video games isn’t killing anybody.

Consider that an AI depiction of a person engaging in scat play would not be permissible simply because no actual dung was involved - the image is still consiidered a depiction of an obscene act. The images are not themselves obscene; an image is simply a representative visual symbol - and often a two-dimensional one, of a three-dimensional object or event, or even a non-dimensional idea or concept. (The act of creating such a symbol, for instance, creating child pornographic photography, does produce image objects that can be considered objectively inherently obscene by the nature of their existence, but they are still only representational symbols of the pornographic acts they document.)

Another reason they’re not likely to be tolerated is that the technology will become more and more sophisticated until it will become either very difficult or impossible to discern real child porn photos from AI generated ones. This will create an environment in which it will be much more difficult to nail down the perpetrators of actual crime. But worse, in creating a so-called ‘victimless’ vice, it would normalize the presence of such imagery in society, thereby normalizing, gradually, the actual behavior. It can’t be permitted.

I spent the better part of 25 years working with Photoshop on a daily basis, and with some work I can alter reality in a photograph to the point that it would take an expert to tell it wasn’t genuine. I avoided that kind of work very carefully, because it essentially creates a lie. It’s especially critical when dealing with historic photographs, because you can change the way people view history and confuse the actual record. I can only imagine that laws will have to be developed to govern the creation of certain classes of images, such as those that might commonly be used to prosecute or defend accused persons at trial. If we reach a point at which no one can tell what’s real and what’s fake, nothing can be trusted.

Imagine you go to the grocery with cash in your wallet, but the grocer says, he’s received word that counterfeit cash is circulating that’s indistinguishable from real legal tender. You hand him a bill to pay for the cucumber you want to use to - well, never mind that - but he asks how can you prove it isn’t one of the counterfeit bills? You can’t, and suddenly your real money is worthless if he decides not to accept it.

[badjujuboy]

@rawTOP check out stable diffusion. From what I know, it allows NSFW images to be created as it has a filter. 

[topblkmale]

this AI me 😀

[topblkmale]

10 hours ago, Opensesame said:

I wonder if depicting AI underage, etc. will be considered legal since a real person, etc. isn’t being victimized. Like murdering people in video games isn’t killing anybody.

Wow...I wondered this exact same thing. I think the current law will interpret this as 'cartoon' which I believe is also illegal to depict underage. But how will age be determined in an AI image?

[spoonboy44]

On 5/9/2023 at 8:46 AM, rawTOP said:

If you're using AI to generate erotic/explicit images I could use your help. No pay, but could be fun and I'm willing to do other things that may be of benefit to you…

I tried Midjourney and quit after it told me "shirtless" was a banned word. (SMH…)

I was having fun getting Midjourney to create things it probably wasn't supposed to create 😈

[ErosWired]

How does AI evaluate an utterly subjective parameter like ‘attractive’ in an objective way? The only way would be to use an algorithm that assesses what is tagged as ‘attractive’ in other contexts - but the contexts it’s using for source data are already heavily biased by the same media and cultural pressures that cause idealized and unrealistic senses of what constitutes human attractiveness. Because the AI has no human quality to counterbalance the algorithmic conclusion, the result is simply more concentrated idealization and bias.

[spoonboy44]

On 5/13/2023 at 8:42 AM, ErosWired said:

How does AI evaluate an utterly subjective parameter like ‘attractive’ in an objective way? 

Do you not think the answer to that question would not be worth knowing? One of the reasons I used that word is because I was curious to what would come out. How interesting it would be to see something that would be aesthetically pleasing to an AI. It's no different than if I were to ask you. Why? Because your definition of attractive is different than Topblackmale's. And Topblackmale's is diff....well, different strokes for different folks. I think there's value in knowig those differences and seeing the world differently than how Im used to.  I'm always fascinated with what makes each other tick. Particularly if it's the complete opposite of my tastes.

[Rillion]

On 5/12/2023 at 5:13 PM, topblkmale said:

Wow...I wondered this exact same thing. I think the current law will interpret this as 'cartoon' which I believe is also illegal to depict underage. But how will age be determined in an AI image?

It varies by jurisdiction currently. Some places those types of cartoons are illegal and other places they are legal.

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, spoonboy44 said:

How interesting it would be to see something that would be aesthetically pleasing to an AI. It's no different than if I were to ask you. Why? Because your definition of attractive is different than Topblackmale's.

Except it’s entirely different. You can’t ask an AI what’s pleasing to it, because an AI doesn’t experience pleasure - or indeed, any emotion at all. You’re projecting human qualities onto a system that only seems to have them because it mimics their output. If you want to look at an AI’s output, compare it to your own, and contemplate the difference, that’s fine, but don’t be under the impression that you’re actually comparing your way of looking at things with another human being’s. If you ask me and Topblackmale what’s attractive, and get two different answers, at least you’re getting answers filtered by the same humanity that you have, and the machine lacks.

A friend was telling me about a guy’s results when he asked an AI to use a pick-up line on a date. My response was, why would you as an AI for something like that? You could train an AI to parrot back a series of conditional responses, but you couldn’t train it to want to think of a pick-up line, or feel a need to think of a pick-up line, because it isn’t sentient, has no emotional needs or empathy, and isn’t actually relating to a human being.

Just yesterday a friend told me that he had been Best Man at another friend’s wedding, and had asked ChatGPT to write his Best Man’s speech, which it did, and which he used. I was appalled. This was a thing he had been asked to put his thought and his heart into, and he put neither. In an age when it is rapidly becoming more and more vital that human beings begin to think, AI is about to take us in exactly the opposite direction, to a state in which people don’t have to use their minds to do anything - they’ll just let the machine do it.

The ironic thing about all this is that I was a Star Wars child - Star Wars came out when I was in elementary school, and for the last half-century I have desperately longed for the day when I could have a real droid like Artoo and Threepio. Yet I’ll be damned before I let these AI machines do my thinking for me.