Again, I don't know who that is, sorry. I'm not in the US so I don't follow American politics so closely and I'm unsure what point you're making or how to respond.
eshoo's argument is that there are photos of Asian females being beaten generated by Stable Diffusion posted to 4chan and thus the NSA needs to step in and do something to stop Stable Diffusion.
These arguments are ridiculous. These are fake images generated with an algorithm. Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world.
Fake images means someone's ego was hurt and they have a legal battle to attend to if they want the fake images of themselves removed from the internet. Those same fake images could be generated with Photoshop. AI just makes it easier. Banning AI doesn't solve the problem.
The time and resources spent debating and attempting to ban AI should be diverted to real issues. The fear surrounding AI is misplaced and makes people who embrace the fear look weak and foolish. The people sowing the fear have the most to gain from public compliance.
Additionally, you implied that I am exhibiting some sort of Hacker News group think, I am not.
But perhaps this site draws a certain type of personality. I am against government regulation and intervention, and I am VERY against the nanny-statism influence of the UK and others that is being pushed on the US.
These arguments aren't mine. You're attempting to colour my words by associating them with someone else's who they apparently "sound like."
> Real images are more concerning because it means real people were harmed in the real world.
Yes, they are. I hope real images of abuse are treated with the gravity they deserve.
> Those same fake images could be generated with Photoshop. AI just makes it easier.
Yes, many of the things we achieve with me technology could previously have been achieved with more effort using earlier technologies. Airplanes are still world changing, though, even thick we already had cars.
> Banning AI doesn't solve the problem.
This is a strawman.
> Additionally, you implied that I am exhibiting some sort of Hacker News group think, I am not.
I simply meant that HN is a predominantly male space and that men are less likely to be victims of faked pornography, so the discussion here will inevitably take a more detached and theoretical point of view on these matters than if potential victims were more included in the conversion.
> These arguments aren't mine. You're attempting to colour my words by associating them with someone else's who they apparently "sound like."
I didn't say they are. You stated you didn't know what I was talking about, I explained. No one is attempting to color your words as anything. You made a statement regarding the harm AI is doing to women and I'm saying that it echos the sentiment of a congresswoman who I deeply disagree with.
> This is a strawman.
no, it isn't a strawman when that is literally the issue on the table. Congresswoman Eshoo as I stated wants to use state power to ban Stable Diffusion, and she's using the same argument you're using. The entire world is in a moral panic and it makes me embarrassed to share the same oxygen as these people.
> no, it isn't a strawman when that is literally the issue on the table. Congresswoman Eshoo...
I am not Congresswoman Eshoo. I said nothing about a ban. I was making my own points from my own perspective and you've begun arguing against something that someone else has said and put me into their camp by saying I'm echoing them.
