[mslt]

Pointing out that something feels a little creepy, while explicitly stating that you don’t yuck other people’s yum is hardly “farming outrage.” We collectively need to have earnest conversations about how how emerging technologies affect our experiences, and her tone is pretty middle-of-the-road.

[smcin]

Intentionally opting into an AI platform where we would already foresee a subset of users would start generating sexual content of other users without their knowledge, then professing to be surprised about it, seems contrived. OpenAI had just allowed porn and violence, and we already know a subset of their users will obsessively push the guardrails (plus there's a financial incentive to).

The only parts of the article that seem to be news are a) OpenAI's blanket consent is very broad and doesn't warn users what might be done with cameos, or segment consent into various different types of content use (as even 25yo modeling sites do) b) that subset of users will bypass the guardrails and c) OpenAI doesn't close the feedback loop by notifying the users in a) what the users in set b) are doing, let alone allow revising or revoking consent.

But why is the conversation only about b) (the predictable bad behavior by users) rather than a) and c) (feasible solutions)?

Notopoulos correctly remarks: "part of an overall pattern of how OpenAI has approached the concept of copyright and intellectual property: asking forgiveness, not permission."

By the way previous (non-sexual-content) incarnations of this sort of issue are 2019 when Clearview scraped 3 billion images non-consensually from people's social-media and state DMVs [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35421117].

Or the previous 2024 OpenAI/Scarlett Johansson-sounding voice shenanigans. Or the existing proliferation of AI porn elsewhere.

[quantified]

Bow does other people doing things affect her, though?