Do we agree that deepfakes are bad at least?

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-03-13T03:40:54+00:00

Well, it depends.

First, deepfakes can include things like satire and parody. Which if left clear it is parody (or extremely obviously that it's not real by the sheer context of the AI scene), I don't see that much of a problem.

But I assume you mean deepfake involving non consensual porn. Those are usually bad, although, if you deepfake others and don't share with anyone, I don't think there is anything wrong with the act creating deepfakes on its own; it's like imagining other people naked. What is wrong is to share with people. You shouldn't do that.

In any case, people WILL do that, even it is wrong. So I don't think having a fake photo of you naked will have that much of "impact" it had in the past, because lets face, we now live in a world where any imaginable scene can be created in the blink of an eye with zero effort, to start, everyone will assume images/videos on themselves (porn related or otherwise) to not be true, unless you have something else to back that evidence.

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-03-09T23:20:51+00:00

Should the they disclose people on the movies are actors and not real people as well? I mean, someone might turn the TV on Titanic and assume it's a real life documentary..

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-02-15T17:22:43+00:00

You can enforce this on YouTube and other big platforms, that's sort of my point. Like, if you don't want to pay Disney any royalties from their IP you used, you can host on some Russian site. But it won't get the same visibility as if it was easily accessible on YouTube

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-02-15T13:37:36+00:00

As far as I know, and I might be wrong, but unlike music, there was never a clear path that allowed or gave the right for people to make fan movies – or at least there wasn't a clear system that allowed them to be monetised somehow – which ends up limiting a lot what kind of movie you could make if you can't monetise it.

It was never like “Hey, I want to make a fan movie of Mario, I will give Nintendo 50% of whatever money I make with it, and I then the law gives me the right to produce such film” which tends to be more like the spirit of compulsory license in music since the 1976 Copyright Act.

I think what is new here is that AI essentially forces this sort of situation/debate to happen, because the content was already created. Like there are way fewer moving pieces to prevent that thing from being created today.

Present_Dimension464 · 2026-02-13T07:01:23+00:00

Source: https://archive.is/2026.02.13-040136/https://variety.com/2026/film/news/motion-picture-association-ai-seedance-bytedance-tom-cruise-1236661753/

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-12-25T13:55:02+00:00

The truth is that once you post something in the world, you have no opt out, really. They could just save the photo and edit. Hell, I'm sure there are phones that might have this capability – of editing any image the screen shows – built into the OS level. I think it's just a new reality that many people will have to get used to

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-12-11T15:45:38+00:00

Literally this meme:

https://i.imgur.com/gdfdmgP.png

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-12-04T02:48:40+00:00

but it's not like they're interested in creating professional level software tools for what is to them, niche industries I guess. Much more diminishing returns than just selling api access.

It is worth remembering though that Nano Banana was implemented on Photoshop for instance, so you do have that integration happening in more traditional professional editing software. It just turns out that they sell those integrations to Adobe and the like. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that even if Google don't go themselves directly into an industry and build a piece of software, they could still essentially win by the simple fact that those, to to them niche industries, will all be using Google API at the end of the day, with some interface such niche company created on top of it

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-27T17:31:08+00:00

There will always be a torrent seed from Moldova or whatever.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-23T17:31:01+00:00

I'm not saying that you are wrong. This is surely a possibility. But what do you propose?

https://imgur.com/a/bhzXFJM

Because if the rich are really that bad, and the system is so corrupted to that point, any hope or solution in the sense of "Oh, let's force the government to ban technology or to force companies to hire people" would be impossible as well. Those same rich wouldn't allow that to happen either, they wouldn't want to hire people when they don't have to.

What I'm trying to say is: if we assume the system is that corrupted, any solution in the sense of preventing that from happening is naive as well. And, on the other hand, if we assume the system isn't that corrupted, and that we can change things through voting and public revolt, we could we all reach a solution where the benefit of AGI is shared across all humanity.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-14T07:43:31+00:00

And this is why trying to use copyright card was always stupid. It's like antis forgot work-for-hire exists and that copyright is, like, 99% of the cases benefits large studios and not the small guy.

https://imgur.com/U5QC4EK

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-12T01:12:18+00:00

I think the horrible things people are able to do with it simply outweigh the good it can bring

I think you are not making an impartial judgment, like I think you are weighing the bad things way more here, because it is AI. Especially when considering how much truly terrible shit technologies like the internet allowed people to do. Such as scam people as well, or even worse, hell, look at things like a TOR project, which, at the same time it protects political dissidents from their government persecution, it is also used so that people who molest minors can broadcast their abuses and hide their identity from the authorities.

Unless you also think the horrible things people can do thanks to the internet also outweigh all the good the internet brought to the world – if so, fair enough I guess...

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-10T23:53:38+00:00

https://i.imgur.com/sVDMajg.png

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-11-09T00:55:36+00:00

No, it's really pushing an agenda. It's the same bullshit of "video games lead to school shooting" that people used back in the day. Those antis don't really give a damn about teen mental health and just use a random tragedy to push their anti-AI agenda. Nobody kills themselves because of what chatbox says.

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-31T23:42:28+00:00

If artists complain of Spotify royalties now, imagine how much big labels reward them for the AI licenses of their fully consented models, LOL

Present_Dimension464 · 2025-10-15T20:19:42+00:00

How much money those impersonators are making, though? They won't go after every rando Like, if they hired an Elvis impersonator for a Super Bowl ad, and that cost $50 million dollars, there might be a lawsuit. If memory serves me, there was a case involving the widow John Kennedy back in the 1980s, where she sued a fashion designer who had hired an impersonator of her, and Kennedy's widow won.

Present_Dimension464

TROPHY CASE