God that would sound so dystopian and futuristic...but to be honest, most articles about AI today would sound like that back then. Damn people would freak out about privacy.
pretty sure they didn't.
We should still freak out about privacy
BOINC came out 21 years ago, so it wouldn't be that unreasonable.
So, it's like folding@home, but instead of donating your spare compute to science, you sell it to generate porn?
Porning@home
Can we at least see it?
This... This was inevitable.
"Selling" it for digital copies of images and some variable tweaks
So... this AI company gets gaming teens to "donate" their computing power, rather than pay for render farms / GPU clouds?
And then oblivious parents pay the power bills, effectively covering the computing costs of the AI porn company?
Sounds completely ethical to me /s.
No no, they're getting copies of digital images out of it. It's a totally fair trade!
I’ll be a minority voice considering the other comments. But maybe just pay for onlyfans or whatever you guys use. I’m a generally attractive woman (I can surmise from interactions while trying to date) and I really don’t like the idea that my likeness would be used for something like this. Get your jollies off, but try and be a bit consensual about it. Is that so much to ask?
It isn't too much to ask. According to Dr. K of HealthyGamerGG (Harvard Psychiatrist/Instructor), research shows that the release of non-consensual porn makes the unwilling subjects suicidal over half the time. Non-consensual porn = deepfakes, revenge porn, etc. It's seriously harmful, and there are other effects like depression, shame, PTSD, anxiety, and so on. There is functionally unlimited porn out there that is made with consent, and if someone doesn't want to be publicly sexually explicit then that's their choice.
I'm not against AI porn in general (I consider it the modern version of dirty drawings/cartoons), but when it comes to specific likenesses as with deepfakes then there's clear proof of harm and that's enough for me to oppose it. I don't believe there's some inherent right to see specific people naked against their will.
I think it would be too big of a privacy overreach to try to ban it outright as I think what people do on their own computers is their own business and there's no way to enforce a full ban without being incredibly intrusive, but as soon as it gets distributed in any way I think it should be prosecuted as heavily as real non consensual porn that was taken against someone's will.
I wonder if part of the emotional risk is due to the general social stigma attached to porn. It becomes something that has to be explained and justified.
If done to grand excess, deepfakes could crash the market on that, so to speak. Yeah, everyone saw your face on an AI-generated video. They also saw Ruth Bader Ginsburg, their Aunt Matilda, and for good measure, Barry Bonds, and that was just a typical Thursday.
The shock value is burnt through, and "I got deepfaked" ends with a social stigma on the level of "I got in a shouting match with a cashier" or "I stumbled into work an hour late recently."
My main concern is for kids and teenagers. They'll bully people for no damn reason at all and AI porn allows for bullies to do more fucked up psychological abuse, and that could be made much worse if victims have no recourse to fight back.
I think the key is a lot of people don't want to pay for porn. And in the case of deep fakes, it's stuff they literally cannot pay money to get.
Ai porn isn't deepfake porn. The default is just a random ai generated face and body. Unless you want to it's difficult to deepfake someone.
Their photos are still unwittingly being used as training data.
Whose photos?
Excellent question.
You can't just say "excellent question" when someone asks you to clarify your point lmfao
"They're trying to force our kids to get vaccines so they can manipulate them with 5g wifi"
How could they manipulate your kids with 5g signals?
"That's a good question innit"
I guess this was just one level of abstraction too much for you huh?
The entire issue here is AI being trained on people's data without them knowing or giving permission. The question of who's likenesses and which photos are being used is an excellent question and it's a big part of the problem here.
Agreed. Because without an answer, it's just a baseless claim.
Haven't heard of inpainting?
So I’m not disagreeing with you, but you’re assuming they’re making deepfake images, and the article doesn’t specify that. In fact I’d bet that it’s just AI generated “people” that don’t exist.
What about AI porn of a person that doesn’t exist?
However, one of Salad's clients is CivitAi, a platform for sharing AI generated images which has previously been investigated by 404 media. It found that the service hosts image generating AI models of specific people, whose image can then be combined with pornographic AI models to generate non-consensual sexual images.
Fair, somehow I missed that
'somehow'
I know someone who’s into really dark romance stuff, like really hardcore stuff, but she’d never do some of this due to safety reasons. I can totally see her generating scenes of herself in those situations.
Shouldn't be but I've been down voted here for speaking against deepfakes. Some people really don't want to see the problem with them.
I have a question and I hope that people here will discuss this because I really want to understand the general opinion on this.
Is it wrong to deepfake someone without their consent so long as you don’t share the content and it’s all stored locally? I’ve seen this come up and my general opinion is that it isn’t. I know that isn’t the case in the article, just want to hear why people would disagree.
My angle is that doing a deepfake of someone in private hurts zero people and is an extension of fantasy. I don’t see the creation of fake nudes any different than writing fantasy erotica about someone. And I also don’t see it as different than creating fake nude art of them by hand or with photoshop. Like if you do it in your head anyways, which is completely normal, then aren’t we just worried about the outside effects and not the fantasizing itself?
It's at least as wrong as fantasizing about them if they aren't already romantically involved with you.
How wrong that is, is up for debate. It will definitely creep them out and they can never find out about it.
If it's just in your head, at least there's no physical way they could ever find out. You'd have to admit it. But if you have it on your hard drive, a hacker could get it and blackmail you with it, or just distribute it.
So my stance is that there's a non-zero chance of doing harm to them, and so it's wrong. I wouldn't do it. I also wouldn't create it with Photoshop, or by hand, for the same reason.
If you want to jerk off, do it to existing porn, or imaginary people porn. Don't create porn of real people without their permission, even if you think nobody will ever see it other than you. Accidents happen, and they don't deserve to bear the cost of that.
You'd have to admit it. But if you have it on your hard drive, a hacker could get it and blackmail you with it, or just distribute it.
There are lots of sick fucks that will distribute it themselves and even send it to their victims to harass them directly. It's already happening.
I don't think it's possible to ban it outright, and I think what people do on their own computer is their own business so long as they aren't connecting to other computers, but we should have strong laws against distributing it and treat it the same as distributing secretly taken real nudes against someone's will. Victims need recourse against harassment.
The first part, absolutely. But I think a lot of that is biological so I don’t see fantasy as a problem. You should keep it to yourself though.
The second part I think Id somewhat agree with except the hacker can’t blackmail you with it because it’s just as likely that they created it. And even if they did blackmail you, I would view that as the damage caused by the hacker, not by the individual.
Like if someone put something nasty about me down in their diary where they expected it to be private, and a hacker sent me an email of that diary page, that’s entirely the hackers fault. The diary writer was expressing an emotion or desire or whatever in complete privacy. Was their creation wrong? No, I don’t think so.
And to be clear I’m not saying people should go to this type of fantasy, this is all a thought exercise for ethics, but I think a lot about this stuff because as much potential for bad as it has, it also has some potential for good. All of the women I know experience behaviors such as stalking, obsession, unwelcome sexual advances, etc. on a regular basis. There is a reason those men don’t turn to free porn. Incel behavior is also just as bad in many ways. So could AI and deepfake stuff result in many of those men keeping that stuff to themselves more? Maybe.
And before you say that these perverts will just send fake nudes to you and harass you that way, we should absolutely be prosecuting people that do so. That’s an entirely separate convo tho.
It will definitely creep them out and they can never find out about it.
And that's all that's required for it to be considered wrong IMO.
Better not ever fantasize about anyone without their consent, either.
How anyone could think that going so far as to invoke thoughtcrime is relevant in this discussion is beyond me. It should be self evident to anyone that fantasies are a thing. They've been a thing for the entire history of the human race. In no way do fantasies compare to creating reproducible and sharable media of someone in a pornographic situation without their consent.
You can't transplant your fantasies into someone else's head. Your fantasies literally cannot hurt anyone. On the other hand, imagine if you found out that someone was distributing pornographic material depicting one of your loved ones. It can quite literally ruin someone's reputation to be seen in a pornographic situation.
Your argument is some slippery slope fallacy shit.
Reread the comment I replied to and then reread my comment. You are putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything about sharing anything nor implied anything of the sort.
Deepfake pornography is super goony but if I had to look for a silver lining, at least nobody had to undergo the actual physical degradation of making porn. It’s still gross in its own way, but it’s a different kind of gross that seems worse in some ways but better in others.
I don’t know… Am I off base here?
The consent is entirely missing
That’s the part I was alluding to as being worse
Ah, right, sorry. The first part of your comment makes it seem like you're leaning the other way.
I’m not sure if I feel strongly enough about it to have a consequential opinion either way but I’m trying to at least judge the situation objectively.
I think you raised a valid point. The non-consensual nature of deepfakes pushes it into the realm of abuse material and maybe that’s worse overall than the general exploitation of women going on in the adult film industry, even if those are supposed to be “consensual” on paper.
Judging by another comment here, non-consensual porn is far worse, and causing suicidal thoughts and more.
So I'd say it has all the "gross" of regular porn (which is subjective) and the additional "gross and horrifying" of violating someone.
Or...just go out and meet people? Onlyfans just enables perversity to keep spreading and ruining our society.
I remember when GPUs were used to fold proteins...
I wore an onion on my belt
As was the fashion at the time
If I'm reading this right, it's a program that users sign up for to donate their processing power (and can opt in or out of adult content), which is then used by client companies to generate their own users' content? It even says that Salad can't view or moderate the images, so what exactly are they doing wrong besides providing service to potentially questionable companies? It makes as much sense as blaming Nvidia or Microsoft, am I missing something?
Based on the rewards, I'm assuming it's being done by very young people. Presumably the value of rewards is really low, but these kids haven't done the cost-benefit analysis. If I had to guess, for the vast majority it costs more in electricity than they get back, but the parents don't know it's happening.
This could be totally wrong. I haven't looked into it. This is how most of these things work though. They prey on the youth and their desire for these products to take advantage of them.
Honestly what roblox kids are willing to do for pitiful pay is scary, if you work in any kind of creative digital medium those kids will do days of your job for a fiver if any real money at all. It won't be industry quality or anything but damn we got a whole digital version of sending kids down the mines. (And some of these roblox games can have unexpectedly big players behind them exploiting kids)
Right, so it's not like they're being tricked into generating porn or anything. It's not some option that they would have turned off if they'd known about it, they just don't care what's happening because they only want the reward. Again I'm not saying I agree with it or that Salad's right to do it, but if they say that's potentially what it can be used for (and they do because the opt-out is available) then the focus should be on the client companies using the tool for questionable purposes.
so what exactly are they doing wrong besides providing service to potentially questionable companies?
Well I think that is the main point of what is wrong. I think the big question is whether the mature content toggle is on by default or not. The company says it's off, but some users said otherwise. Dunno why the author didn't install it and check.
They said they did.
However, by default the software settings opt users into generating adult content. An option exists to "configure workload types manually" which enables users to uncheck the "Adult Content Workloads" option (via 404 media), however this is easily missed in the setup process, which I duly tested for myself to confirm.
Honestly, and I'm not saying I support what's being done here, the way I see it if you're tech savvy enough to be interested in using a program like this you should be looking through all of the options properly anyway. If users don't care what they're doing and are only interested in the rewards that's kind of on them.
I just think the article is focused on the wrong company, Salad is selling a tool that is being potentially misused by users of their client's service. I can certainly see why that can be a problem, but based on the information given in the article I don't think it's really theirs. If that's ALL Salad's used for then that's a different story.
It's Roblox stuff you can buy, it's not power users that are the target demographic
Ah thanks I think I forgot that sentence by the end of the article and thought it was just a user report that it was checked by default. I really don't think that it should be checked by default, depending on where you are it could even get you in trouble. App setup for this kind of stuff isn't necessarily only for power users now, it has gotten very streamlined and tested for conversion.
explain this to a person in 1998
Imagine collecting the smartest people on the planet from 100 years ago and explaining this.
I kinda fail to see the problem. The GPU owner doesn't see what workload they are processing. The pr0n company is willing to pay for GPU power. The GPU owner wants to earn money with his hardware. There's a demand, there's an offer, nobody is getting hurt (ai pr0n is not illegal, at least for now) so let people what they want to do
The problem is that they are clearly targeting minors who don't pay their own electricity bill, and dont even neccessarily have awareness that they are paying for their fortnite skins with their parents money.
Also: there is a good chance that the generated pictures are at some point present on in the filesystem of the generating computer, and that alone is a giant can of worms that can even lead to legal troubles, if the person lives in a country where some or all kinds of pronography are illegal.
This is a shitty grift, abusing people who don't understand the consequences of the software.
Agreed. Preying on children who don't understand what they're signing up for is shitty to begin with.
Then, add that deepfake AI porn is unethical and likely illegal (and who knows what other kinds of potentially-illegal images are being generated...)
And, as you point out, the files having existed in the computer could, alone, be illegal.
Then, as and extra fuck you, burning GPU cycles to make AI images is causing CO2 emissions, GPU wear, waste heat that might trigger AC, and other negative externalities too, I'm sure...
It's shit all around.
wow. Imagine burning out your expensive GPU for a fortnite skin.
Great. Now we're trading pre-made traditional artwork to kids in exchange for fresh robot porn!
and the kids are getting the traditional art! would not have called it.
You would think they would do this to mine Bitcoin too.
Whose to say they aren't doing that on the side?
Boring Dystopia
What? Seems like porn generation is the new crypto mining.
I'd rather have a wealth of new porn around rather than thousands random Blockchains going around.
At least the porn will probably be useful for someone long term haha
I don't get the hate for AI porn.
On its own, it's just the same as hate for porn. But there's also deep fake porn, ai porn of real people, and that's potentially far more problematic.
In my case it's just the same as hate for AI generated slop
Do you hate all amateur art, or just when it's made with ai tools? Does a kid's drawing, produced in scant seconds and with no training and remarkably little skill hold negative value to you, or is it worth something?
What about art produced with hours or days of effort and a specific goal in mind, but don't so using primarily ai with perhaps a few finishing touches?
I love it when people get hyper defensive about this for no reason at all. Aesthetically, AI art is obviously better than a child's scribbles, but the problem is that AI art is pure aesthetic, with no meaning behind it at all, and if you engage with art purely for the aesthetic, then you fundamentally miss the point of it. AI can't mean anything when it produces art. It just spits out a series of 1s and 0s based on whatever nonsense you shout into it.
It doesn't matter how many hours you spend working on a piece, if you use AI (Edit to clarify: if you use AI to generate the art in its entirety), then the AI made the art. An AI cannot answer questions about artistic decisions it made, because it made no decisions. It's worse than tracing—at least an amateur artist can answer why they decided to copy another artist's work.
Because charitable interpretation is dead, I have to clarify. I'm not saying that there is no valid use case AI generated art, nor am I saying that all human-made art is good. All I'm saying is that human-made art can have meaning behind it, while AI art cannot. It's incapable of having meaning, so it isn't really art.
It doesn't matter how many hours you spend working on a piece, if you use AI, then the AI made the art.
Except that artists can use ai as a tool to make art. Sure, the ai can't say why that pixel looks that way, but the artist can say why this is the output that was kept. They can tell you why they chose to prompt the ai the way they did, what outputs they expected and why the ones that were kept were special, let alone what changes they may have made after and why.
If Jackson Pollock can make art from randomness by flicking a brush, why can't someone make art from randomness by promoting an ai? Is there a lone somewhere that makes it become art, in your opinion? I don't think it would be uncharitable by interpreting the above quote to mean you don't believe it is possible at all to use ai as a tool in the production of the art.
If ai is the only tool used, it never makes an image, let alone art, because there was never even a human using language to prompt the ai. But from that obviously ridiculous extreme there is certainly a long spectrum ranging through what I described above to something as far removed as a human generating landscapes for a storyboard before fully producing a movie that doesn't include the air outputs in any physical way. I'm sure you would claim a line exists between there, and I'm curious where.
There's a couple of orthogonal arguments here, and I'm going to try to address them both: are you an artist if you use AI generated art, and why do I hate AI generated art?
Telling a machine "car, sedan, neon lights, raining, shining asphalt, night time, city lights" is not creating art. To me, it's equivalent to commissioning art. If I pay someone $25 to draw my D&D character, then I am not an artist, I've simply hired one to draw what I wanted to see. Now, if I make any meaningful changes to that artwork, I could be considered an artist. For example, if I commissioned someone else to do the line work, and then I fill in the colors, we've both made the artwork. Of course, this can be stretched to an extreme that challenges my descriptivism. If I put a single black pixel on the Mona Lisa, can I say I collaborated on the output? Technically, yes, but I can't take credit for anything other than putting a black pixel on it. Similarly, I feel that prompt engineers can't take any credit for the pictures that AI produces past the prompt that they provided and whatever post-processing they do.
As for why I hate AI art, I just hate effortless slop. It's the exact same thing as YouTube shorts comprised of Family Guy clips and slime. I have a hard time really communicating this feeling to other people, but I know many other people feel the same way. Even aside from the ethical concerns of stealing people's artwork to train image generators, we live in a capitalist society, and automating things like art generation and youtube shorts uploads harms the people who actually produce those things in the first place.
Telling a machine "car, sedan, neon lights, raining, shining asphalt, night time, city lights" is not creating art. To me, it's equivalent to commissioning art.
When art is commissioned, art is produced. If no human produced it, an ai did. If ai cannot produce art, then a human must have.
Similarly, I feel that prompt engineers can't take any credit for the pictures that AI produces past the prompt that they provided and whatever post-processing they do.
I suppose I don't understand why engineering a prompt can't count as an artistic skill, nor why selecting from a number of generated outputs can't (albeit to probably a much lower degree). At what point does a patron making a commission become a collaborator? And if ai fills the role of the painter, why wouldn't you expect that line to move?
As for why I hate AI art, I just hate effortless slop.
I'm with you there. And I would brook no issue with completing about the massive amount of terrible, low-effort ai art currently being produced. But broadening the claim to include all art in which the most efficacious tool used was ai pushes it over the line for me.
When art is commissioned, art is produced. If no human produced it, an ai did. If ai cannot produce art, then a human must have.
Right, so this is what I mean when I say that charitable interpretation is dead. Taking my earlier assertion that AI generated art isn't real art, along with my assertion that providing a prompt to an AI is essentially equivalent to providing a description to a human artist for a commission, should not have read as an argument for or against AI generated art being real art. Taking those statements together, the only reasonable conclusion you can make about my position is that prompt engineers aren't artists.
I suppose I don't understand why engineering a prompt can't count as an artistic skill, nor why selecting from a number of generated outputs can't (albeit to probably a much lower degree). At what point does a patron making a commission become a collaborator?
Never. It's not an artistic skill in the same way that providing a description to an actual artist is not an artistic skill, which was the point of that paragraph. They become a collaborator the moment they make changes to the work, and the level to which they can say they're an artist depends on what changes they make, and how well they make them.
Right, so this is what I mean when I say that charitable interpretation is dead. Taking my earlier assertion that AI generated art isn't real art, along with my assertion that providing a prompt to an AI is essentially equivalent to providing a description to a human artist for a commission, should not have read as an argument for or against AI generated art being real art. Taking those statements together, the only reasonable conclusion you can make about my position is that prompt engineers aren't artists.
That sounds like the interpretation I'm responding to. It either doesn't follow from your premises, or it begs the question. Yes, if ai art isn't real art, no art produced with ai is real art, but that's a tautology. I'm trying to get at why you believe ai inherently makes something not art. Low effort was a reason you gave, but you also said no amount of effort could change it.
Never. It's not an artistic skill in the same way that providing a description to an actual artist is not an artistic skill
But providing a description to an "actual artist" is an artistic skill. If you have a particular vision in your head for a character, writing that out is art the same way any kind of writing can be, no? Writing something in a way that gives another artist a mental image that matches yours takes creativity and skill. Why doesn't the work created by that creativity and skill count as art? It seems unnecessarily gatekeep-y.
But providing a description to an "actual artist" is an artistic skill.
Ohhh, so this is why people tag their images by popular art commisioners. Here's another one asked for by XanthemG—you know he asks for good stuff.
Wait, that doesn't happen.
why you believe ai inherently makes something not art.
For the same reason ChatGPT can't make you any less lonely.
Okay. Got it. Charitable interpretation is dead.
Ohhh, so this is why people tag their images by popular art commisioners
There's a point where writing becomes art. You either agree with that, or you don't believe any kind of literature or poetry counts as art. In the latter case, that's a bit of an extreme take but I guess you're welcome to your opinion. In the former case, there's a lone somewhere between Tolkien and XanthemG where something starts being art.
For the same reason ChatGPT can't make you any less lonely.
Only insofar as neither can a book. And yeah, there's obviously a difference there, but the difference isn't inherent to ai. Ai isn't a person, it's a tool. Dismissing anything made by the tool because the tool was used to make them is the position that I think is ridiculous. I'm not claiming that all of the "ai art" people are posting everywhere is definitely "real art"and needs to be taken seriously. I'm claiming that it's possible for an artist to use ai in the production of real art.
Hours of effort to create prompts to maneuver the models output until it looks closer to what you wanted, possibly with the addition of touch-up or addition steps at the end likely needed for certain kinds of image to clean up things the ai struggles with (like, say, hands) or to add something in particular the ai didn't understand (like, say, a monster of your own invention or something).
It's easy to say that doesn't count, that the prompt engineer could have just come up with their final prompt in the first place, but then does it count when a digital painter sketches an outline a dozen times before deciding it's where they want it? After all, the digital artist could have just drawn it the way they wanted at first blush. But I'd bet you'll say the time the digital artist spent "counts" as time spent working on an art piece, even if you might be inclined to say the prompt engineer's time doesn't. I'd be interested to hear your take.
Dude, I don't care how many iterations a person goes through. I care that the piece contains a bit of their soul.
The argument you're making fails to appreciate why two images, one made by gen AI, one by a real human person, both exactly identical pixel by pixel, could possibly be valued differently.
If you want to know why I seem to lack respect for the prompt artist who spends a 3-month chunk of their life toiling over their latest piece, making everything just so, because some part of them desperately needs to say something and this piece is the only way they can---I would ask you to show me one.
But further, the prompt artist doesn't even make it. Even if they did spend the time, credit goes to the AI. The prompt artist is welcome to claim their prompt, I guess, but I don't often see them sharing those around. Would that even be entertaining?
Dude, I don't care how many iterations a person goes through. I care that the piece contains a bit of their soul.
the prompt artist who spends a 3-month chunk of their life toiling over their latest piece,
I'm curious what could possibly convince you that someone put their soul into their work? Or why the assumption is always that ai is the only tool being used.
Here's a list of artists using ai tools in their work.
But further, the prompt artist doesn't even make it.
Again, ai is a tool. That's like saying digital artists didn't make their paintings, the printer did. Or maybe it's like saying the director didn't make the movie, the actors and cameras did. Actually, I really like the director analogy. They give directions to the actors as many times as they need to get the take they want, and then they finalize it later with post production.
When it contains their soul, I already said this.
Actually, I really like the director analogy.
Yes, it's very quaint.
Does the director take credit for their actor's acting, though? Usually, the actors win the award for best acting.
Does the director take credit for their actor's acting, though? Usually, the actors win the award for best acting.
So an ai artist shouldn't earn any awards for best painting. Directors are still credited as artists. I'm not saying using ai makes you a painter, or any other kind of artist. I'm just saying that "ai" doesn't magically make a creation "not art". And yeah, it's possible to create zero effort slop with ai that can look a lot more interesting than the zero effort slop you can make with just paint, but a kid splattering paint everywhere doesn't make Jackson Pollock not be an artist.
But that's the same issue of making fakes that we've had for 30+ years since digital manipulation became feasible.
Yeah sure except now to make deep fake porn you just need to go 'famous star naked riding an old man's cock' set 8 images for each seed and set a job of 100 images, turn the air con to antarctic and make misogynistic videos about why movies are woke while the job slowly cooks your studio
Then when you finish you probably have some good images of whatever famous star you like getting railed by an old man and you can hop on YouTube and complain that people don't think you are an artist.
It requires almost no effort or talent to make a boatload of deep fake material. If you put any effort in you can orchestrate an image that looks pretty good.
Add to that the fact that before ai, unless you're already pretty famous, no one cares enough to make nonconsensual porn of you. After, anyone vaguely attracted to you can snap or find a few pictures and do a decent job of it without any skill or practice.
Ease of creation shouldn't have a bearing on whether or not the final result is illegal. A handmade vs AI generated fake nude should be treated the same way.
I didn't argue that it shouldn't. The difference is the ease of creation. It now requires no skill or talent to produce it so the game has changed and it needs to be addressed and not dismissed
deepfakes predate the ai boom. you don't need ai for deepfakes
Well, the word deep fake is literally from the ai boom, but I understand you to mean doctored images to make it look like someone was doing a porn when they didn't was already a thing.
And yeah, it very much was. But unless you were already a high profile individual like a popular celebrity, or mayyybe if you happened to be attractive to the one guy making them, they didn't tend to get made of you, and certainly not well. Now, anyone with a crush and a photo of you can make your face and a pretty decent approximation of your naked body move around and make noises while doing the nasty. And they can do it many orders of magnitude faster and with less skill than before.
So no, you don't need ai for it to exist and be somewhat problematic, but ai makes it much more problematic.
One ethics quandary is AI child porn. It at least provides a non-harmful outlet for an otherwise harmful act, but it could also feed addictions and feel insufficient.
You clearly haven't seen it, nor know anyone affected by it. It's like 99% noncon shit from people who are too creepy for artists to work with.
100% that porn is not legal. It's also pretty easy to tell which demographic they're targeting with this.
Eh I agree with the reasonable takes here. Nothing wrong with generating that sort of stuff until it starts resembling the likeliness of a real living person. Then I think it’s just creepy; especially if for some reason you are sharing it 💀
Porn will be one of the first applied "arts" completely replaced by AI (including onlyfans like pseudo social interactions), which is great since in general it's a rather horrible industry.
I love the industry tbh
I enjoy the product, but the industry is pretty fucked.
I'm the inverse; I find the product boring but the industry is mad fun.
This shit is tight. I signed up. I consume porn I might as well help them make it
Imagine reading that headline 20 years ago.
God that would sound so dystopian and futuristic...but to be honest, most articles about AI today would sound like that back then. Damn people would freak out about privacy.
pretty sure they didn't.
We should still freak out about privacy
BOINC came out 21 years ago, so it wouldn't be that unreasonable.
So, it's like folding@home, but instead of donating your spare compute to science, you sell it to generate porn?
Porning@home
Can we at least see it?
This... This was inevitable.
"Selling" it for digital copies of images and some variable tweaks
So... this AI company gets gaming teens to "donate" their computing power, rather than pay for render farms / GPU clouds?
And then oblivious parents pay the power bills, effectively covering the computing costs of the AI porn company?
Sounds completely ethical to me /s.
No no, they're getting copies of digital images out of it. It's a totally fair trade!
I’ll be a minority voice considering the other comments. But maybe just pay for onlyfans or whatever you guys use. I’m a generally attractive woman (I can surmise from interactions while trying to date) and I really don’t like the idea that my likeness would be used for something like this. Get your jollies off, but try and be a bit consensual about it. Is that so much to ask?
It isn't too much to ask. According to Dr. K of HealthyGamerGG (Harvard Psychiatrist/Instructor), research shows that the release of non-consensual porn makes the unwilling subjects suicidal over half the time. Non-consensual porn = deepfakes, revenge porn, etc. It's seriously harmful, and there are other effects like depression, shame, PTSD, anxiety, and so on. There is functionally unlimited porn out there that is made with consent, and if someone doesn't want to be publicly sexually explicit then that's their choice.
I'm not against AI porn in general (I consider it the modern version of dirty drawings/cartoons), but when it comes to specific likenesses as with deepfakes then there's clear proof of harm and that's enough for me to oppose it. I don't believe there's some inherent right to see specific people naked against their will.
I think it would be too big of a privacy overreach to try to ban it outright as I think what people do on their own computers is their own business and there's no way to enforce a full ban without being incredibly intrusive, but as soon as it gets distributed in any way I think it should be prosecuted as heavily as real non consensual porn that was taken against someone's will.
I wonder if part of the emotional risk is due to the general social stigma attached to porn. It becomes something that has to be explained and justified.
If done to grand excess, deepfakes could crash the market on that, so to speak. Yeah, everyone saw your face on an AI-generated video. They also saw Ruth Bader Ginsburg, their Aunt Matilda, and for good measure, Barry Bonds, and that was just a typical Thursday.
The shock value is burnt through, and "I got deepfaked" ends with a social stigma on the level of "I got in a shouting match with a cashier" or "I stumbled into work an hour late recently."
My main concern is for kids and teenagers. They'll bully people for no damn reason at all and AI porn allows for bullies to do more fucked up psychological abuse, and that could be made much worse if victims have no recourse to fight back.
I think the key is a lot of people don't want to pay for porn. And in the case of deep fakes, it's stuff they literally cannot pay money to get.
Ai porn isn't deepfake porn. The default is just a random ai generated face and body. Unless you want to it's difficult to deepfake someone.
Their photos are still unwittingly being used as training data.
Whose photos?
Excellent question.
You can't just say "excellent question" when someone asks you to clarify your point lmfao
"They're trying to force our kids to get vaccines so they can manipulate them with 5g wifi"
How could they manipulate your kids with 5g signals?
"That's a good question innit"
I guess this was just one level of abstraction too much for you huh?
The entire issue here is AI being trained on people's data without them knowing or giving permission. The question of who's likenesses and which photos are being used is an excellent question and it's a big part of the problem here.
Agreed. Because without an answer, it's just a baseless claim.
Haven't heard of inpainting?
So I’m not disagreeing with you, but you’re assuming they’re making deepfake images, and the article doesn’t specify that. In fact I’d bet that it’s just AI generated “people” that don’t exist.
What about AI porn of a person that doesn’t exist?
Fair, somehow I missed that
'somehow'
I know someone who’s into really dark romance stuff, like really hardcore stuff, but she’d never do some of this due to safety reasons. I can totally see her generating scenes of herself in those situations.
Shouldn't be but I've been down voted here for speaking against deepfakes. Some people really don't want to see the problem with them.
I have a question and I hope that people here will discuss this because I really want to understand the general opinion on this.
Is it wrong to deepfake someone without their consent so long as you don’t share the content and it’s all stored locally? I’ve seen this come up and my general opinion is that it isn’t. I know that isn’t the case in the article, just want to hear why people would disagree.
My angle is that doing a deepfake of someone in private hurts zero people and is an extension of fantasy. I don’t see the creation of fake nudes any different than writing fantasy erotica about someone. And I also don’t see it as different than creating fake nude art of them by hand or with photoshop. Like if you do it in your head anyways, which is completely normal, then aren’t we just worried about the outside effects and not the fantasizing itself?
It's at least as wrong as fantasizing about them if they aren't already romantically involved with you.
How wrong that is, is up for debate. It will definitely creep them out and they can never find out about it.
If it's just in your head, at least there's no physical way they could ever find out. You'd have to admit it. But if you have it on your hard drive, a hacker could get it and blackmail you with it, or just distribute it.
So my stance is that there's a non-zero chance of doing harm to them, and so it's wrong. I wouldn't do it. I also wouldn't create it with Photoshop, or by hand, for the same reason.
If you want to jerk off, do it to existing porn, or imaginary people porn. Don't create porn of real people without their permission, even if you think nobody will ever see it other than you. Accidents happen, and they don't deserve to bear the cost of that.
There are lots of sick fucks that will distribute it themselves and even send it to their victims to harass them directly. It's already happening.
I don't think it's possible to ban it outright, and I think what people do on their own computer is their own business so long as they aren't connecting to other computers, but we should have strong laws against distributing it and treat it the same as distributing secretly taken real nudes against someone's will. Victims need recourse against harassment.
The first part, absolutely. But I think a lot of that is biological so I don’t see fantasy as a problem. You should keep it to yourself though.
The second part I think Id somewhat agree with except the hacker can’t blackmail you with it because it’s just as likely that they created it. And even if they did blackmail you, I would view that as the damage caused by the hacker, not by the individual.
Like if someone put something nasty about me down in their diary where they expected it to be private, and a hacker sent me an email of that diary page, that’s entirely the hackers fault. The diary writer was expressing an emotion or desire or whatever in complete privacy. Was their creation wrong? No, I don’t think so.
And to be clear I’m not saying people should go to this type of fantasy, this is all a thought exercise for ethics, but I think a lot about this stuff because as much potential for bad as it has, it also has some potential for good. All of the women I know experience behaviors such as stalking, obsession, unwelcome sexual advances, etc. on a regular basis. There is a reason those men don’t turn to free porn. Incel behavior is also just as bad in many ways. So could AI and deepfake stuff result in many of those men keeping that stuff to themselves more? Maybe.
And before you say that these perverts will just send fake nudes to you and harass you that way, we should absolutely be prosecuting people that do so. That’s an entirely separate convo tho.
And that's all that's required for it to be considered wrong IMO.
Better not ever fantasize about anyone without their consent, either.
How anyone could think that going so far as to invoke thoughtcrime is relevant in this discussion is beyond me. It should be self evident to anyone that fantasies are a thing. They've been a thing for the entire history of the human race. In no way do fantasies compare to creating reproducible and sharable media of someone in a pornographic situation without their consent.
You can't transplant your fantasies into someone else's head. Your fantasies literally cannot hurt anyone. On the other hand, imagine if you found out that someone was distributing pornographic material depicting one of your loved ones. It can quite literally ruin someone's reputation to be seen in a pornographic situation.
Your argument is some slippery slope fallacy shit.
Reread the comment I replied to and then reread my comment. You are putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything about sharing anything nor implied anything of the sort.
Deepfake pornography is super goony but if I had to look for a silver lining, at least nobody had to undergo the actual physical degradation of making porn. It’s still gross in its own way, but it’s a different kind of gross that seems worse in some ways but better in others.
I don’t know… Am I off base here?
The consent is entirely missing
That’s the part I was alluding to as being worse
Ah, right, sorry. The first part of your comment makes it seem like you're leaning the other way.
I’m not sure if I feel strongly enough about it to have a consequential opinion either way but I’m trying to at least judge the situation objectively.
I think you raised a valid point. The non-consensual nature of deepfakes pushes it into the realm of abuse material and maybe that’s worse overall than the general exploitation of women going on in the adult film industry, even if those are supposed to be “consensual” on paper.
Judging by another comment here, non-consensual porn is far worse, and causing suicidal thoughts and more.
So I'd say it has all the "gross" of regular porn (which is subjective) and the additional "gross and horrifying" of violating someone.
Or...just go out and meet people? Onlyfans just enables perversity to keep spreading and ruining our society.
Capitalism breeds innovation
Welp
This feels exploitative AF on multiple levels.
I remember when GPUs were used to fold proteins...
I wore an onion on my belt
As was the fashion at the time
If I'm reading this right, it's a program that users sign up for to donate their processing power (and can opt in or out of adult content), which is then used by client companies to generate their own users' content? It even says that Salad can't view or moderate the images, so what exactly are they doing wrong besides providing service to potentially questionable companies? It makes as much sense as blaming Nvidia or Microsoft, am I missing something?
Based on the rewards, I'm assuming it's being done by very young people. Presumably the value of rewards is really low, but these kids haven't done the cost-benefit analysis. If I had to guess, for the vast majority it costs more in electricity than they get back, but the parents don't know it's happening.
This could be totally wrong. I haven't looked into it. This is how most of these things work though. They prey on the youth and their desire for these products to take advantage of them.
Honestly what roblox kids are willing to do for pitiful pay is scary, if you work in any kind of creative digital medium those kids will do days of your job for a fiver if any real money at all. It won't be industry quality or anything but damn we got a whole digital version of sending kids down the mines. (And some of these roblox games can have unexpectedly big players behind them exploiting kids)
Right, so it's not like they're being tricked into generating porn or anything. It's not some option that they would have turned off if they'd known about it, they just don't care what's happening because they only want the reward. Again I'm not saying I agree with it or that Salad's right to do it, but if they say that's potentially what it can be used for (and they do because the opt-out is available) then the focus should be on the client companies using the tool for questionable purposes.
Well I think that is the main point of what is wrong. I think the big question is whether the mature content toggle is on by default or not. The company says it's off, but some users said otherwise. Dunno why the author didn't install it and check.
They said they did.
Honestly, and I'm not saying I support what's being done here, the way I see it if you're tech savvy enough to be interested in using a program like this you should be looking through all of the options properly anyway. If users don't care what they're doing and are only interested in the rewards that's kind of on them.
I just think the article is focused on the wrong company, Salad is selling a tool that is being potentially misused by users of their client's service. I can certainly see why that can be a problem, but based on the information given in the article I don't think it's really theirs. If that's ALL Salad's used for then that's a different story.
It's Roblox stuff you can buy, it's not power users that are the target demographic
Ah thanks I think I forgot that sentence by the end of the article and thought it was just a user report that it was checked by default. I really don't think that it should be checked by default, depending on where you are it could even get you in trouble. App setup for this kind of stuff isn't necessarily only for power users now, it has gotten very streamlined and tested for conversion.
explain this to a person in 1998
Imagine collecting the smartest people on the planet from 100 years ago and explaining this.
I kinda fail to see the problem. The GPU owner doesn't see what workload they are processing. The pr0n company is willing to pay for GPU power. The GPU owner wants to earn money with his hardware. There's a demand, there's an offer, nobody is getting hurt (ai pr0n is not illegal, at least for now) so let people what they want to do
The problem is that they are clearly targeting minors who don't pay their own electricity bill, and dont even neccessarily have awareness that they are paying for their fortnite skins with their parents money. Also: there is a good chance that the generated pictures are at some point present on in the filesystem of the generating computer, and that alone is a giant can of worms that can even lead to legal troubles, if the person lives in a country where some or all kinds of pronography are illegal.
This is a shitty grift, abusing people who don't understand the consequences of the software.
Agreed. Preying on children who don't understand what they're signing up for is shitty to begin with.
Then, add that deepfake AI porn is unethical and likely illegal (and who knows what other kinds of potentially-illegal images are being generated...)
And, as you point out, the files having existed in the computer could, alone, be illegal.
Then, as and extra fuck you, burning GPU cycles to make AI images is causing CO2 emissions, GPU wear, waste heat that might trigger AC, and other negative externalities too, I'm sure...
It's shit all around.
wow. Imagine burning out your expensive GPU for a fortnite skin.
Great. Now we're trading pre-made traditional artwork to kids in exchange for fresh robot porn!
and the kids are getting the traditional art! would not have called it.
You would think they would do this to mine Bitcoin too.
Whose to say they aren't doing that on the side?
Boring Dystopia
What? Seems like porn generation is the new crypto mining.
I'd rather have a wealth of new porn around rather than thousands random Blockchains going around.
At least the porn will probably be useful for someone long term haha
I don't get the hate for AI porn.
On its own, it's just the same as hate for porn. But there's also deep fake porn, ai porn of real people, and that's potentially far more problematic.
In my case it's just the same as hate for AI generated slop
Do you hate all amateur art, or just when it's made with ai tools? Does a kid's drawing, produced in scant seconds and with no training and remarkably little skill hold negative value to you, or is it worth something?
What about art produced with hours or days of effort and a specific goal in mind, but don't so using primarily ai with perhaps a few finishing touches?
I love it when people get hyper defensive about this for no reason at all. Aesthetically, AI art is obviously better than a child's scribbles, but the problem is that AI art is pure aesthetic, with no meaning behind it at all, and if you engage with art purely for the aesthetic, then you fundamentally miss the point of it. AI can't mean anything when it produces art. It just spits out a series of 1s and 0s based on whatever nonsense you shout into it.
It doesn't matter how many hours you spend working on a piece, if you use AI (Edit to clarify: if you use AI to generate the art in its entirety), then the AI made the art. An AI cannot answer questions about artistic decisions it made, because it made no decisions. It's worse than tracing—at least an amateur artist can answer why they decided to copy another artist's work.
Because charitable interpretation is dead, I have to clarify. I'm not saying that there is no valid use case AI generated art, nor am I saying that all human-made art is good. All I'm saying is that human-made art can have meaning behind it, while AI art cannot. It's incapable of having meaning, so it isn't really art.
Except that artists can use ai as a tool to make art. Sure, the ai can't say why that pixel looks that way, but the artist can say why this is the output that was kept. They can tell you why they chose to prompt the ai the way they did, what outputs they expected and why the ones that were kept were special, let alone what changes they may have made after and why.
If Jackson Pollock can make art from randomness by flicking a brush, why can't someone make art from randomness by promoting an ai? Is there a lone somewhere that makes it become art, in your opinion? I don't think it would be uncharitable by interpreting the above quote to mean you don't believe it is possible at all to use ai as a tool in the production of the art.
If ai is the only tool used, it never makes an image, let alone art, because there was never even a human using language to prompt the ai. But from that obviously ridiculous extreme there is certainly a long spectrum ranging through what I described above to something as far removed as a human generating landscapes for a storyboard before fully producing a movie that doesn't include the air outputs in any physical way. I'm sure you would claim a line exists between there, and I'm curious where.
There's a couple of orthogonal arguments here, and I'm going to try to address them both: are you an artist if you use AI generated art, and why do I hate AI generated art?
Telling a machine "car, sedan, neon lights, raining, shining asphalt, night time, city lights" is not creating art. To me, it's equivalent to commissioning art. If I pay someone $25 to draw my D&D character, then I am not an artist, I've simply hired one to draw what I wanted to see. Now, if I make any meaningful changes to that artwork, I could be considered an artist. For example, if I commissioned someone else to do the line work, and then I fill in the colors, we've both made the artwork. Of course, this can be stretched to an extreme that challenges my descriptivism. If I put a single black pixel on the Mona Lisa, can I say I collaborated on the output? Technically, yes, but I can't take credit for anything other than putting a black pixel on it. Similarly, I feel that prompt engineers can't take any credit for the pictures that AI produces past the prompt that they provided and whatever post-processing they do.
As for why I hate AI art, I just hate effortless slop. It's the exact same thing as YouTube shorts comprised of Family Guy clips and slime. I have a hard time really communicating this feeling to other people, but I know many other people feel the same way. Even aside from the ethical concerns of stealing people's artwork to train image generators, we live in a capitalist society, and automating things like art generation and youtube shorts uploads harms the people who actually produce those things in the first place.
When art is commissioned, art is produced. If no human produced it, an ai did. If ai cannot produce art, then a human must have.
I suppose I don't understand why engineering a prompt can't count as an artistic skill, nor why selecting from a number of generated outputs can't (albeit to probably a much lower degree). At what point does a patron making a commission become a collaborator? And if ai fills the role of the painter, why wouldn't you expect that line to move?
I'm with you there. And I would brook no issue with completing about the massive amount of terrible, low-effort ai art currently being produced. But broadening the claim to include all art in which the most efficacious tool used was ai pushes it over the line for me.
Right, so this is what I mean when I say that charitable interpretation is dead. Taking my earlier assertion that AI generated art isn't real art, along with my assertion that providing a prompt to an AI is essentially equivalent to providing a description to a human artist for a commission, should not have read as an argument for or against AI generated art being real art. Taking those statements together, the only reasonable conclusion you can make about my position is that prompt engineers aren't artists.
Never. It's not an artistic skill in the same way that providing a description to an actual artist is not an artistic skill, which was the point of that paragraph. They become a collaborator the moment they make changes to the work, and the level to which they can say they're an artist depends on what changes they make, and how well they make them.
That sounds like the interpretation I'm responding to. It either doesn't follow from your premises, or it begs the question. Yes, if ai art isn't real art, no art produced with ai is real art, but that's a tautology. I'm trying to get at why you believe ai inherently makes something not art. Low effort was a reason you gave, but you also said no amount of effort could change it.
But providing a description to an "actual artist" is an artistic skill. If you have a particular vision in your head for a character, writing that out is art the same way any kind of writing can be, no? Writing something in a way that gives another artist a mental image that matches yours takes creativity and skill. Why doesn't the work created by that creativity and skill count as art? It seems unnecessarily gatekeep-y.
Ohhh, so this is why people tag their images by popular art commisioners. Here's another one asked for by XanthemG—you know he asks for good stuff.
Wait, that doesn't happen.
For the same reason ChatGPT can't make you any less lonely.
Okay. Got it. Charitable interpretation is dead.
There's a point where writing becomes art. You either agree with that, or you don't believe any kind of literature or poetry counts as art. In the latter case, that's a bit of an extreme take but I guess you're welcome to your opinion. In the former case, there's a lone somewhere between Tolkien and XanthemG where something starts being art.
Only insofar as neither can a book. And yeah, there's obviously a difference there, but the difference isn't inherent to ai. Ai isn't a person, it's a tool. Dismissing anything made by the tool because the tool was used to make them is the position that I think is ridiculous. I'm not claiming that all of the "ai art" people are posting everywhere is definitely "real art"and needs to be taken seriously. I'm claiming that it's possible for an artist to use ai in the production of real art.
No, because amateur art is interesting.
Hours of effort to what, exactly?
Hours of effort to create prompts to maneuver the models output until it looks closer to what you wanted, possibly with the addition of touch-up or addition steps at the end likely needed for certain kinds of image to clean up things the ai struggles with (like, say, hands) or to add something in particular the ai didn't understand (like, say, a monster of your own invention or something).
It's easy to say that doesn't count, that the prompt engineer could have just come up with their final prompt in the first place, but then does it count when a digital painter sketches an outline a dozen times before deciding it's where they want it? After all, the digital artist could have just drawn it the way they wanted at first blush. But I'd bet you'll say the time the digital artist spent "counts" as time spent working on an art piece, even if you might be inclined to say the prompt engineer's time doesn't. I'd be interested to hear your take.
Dude, I don't care how many iterations a person goes through. I care that the piece contains a bit of their soul.
The argument you're making fails to appreciate why two images, one made by gen AI, one by a real human person, both exactly identical pixel by pixel, could possibly be valued differently.
If you want to know why I seem to lack respect for the prompt artist who spends a 3-month chunk of their life toiling over their latest piece, making everything just so, because some part of them desperately needs to say something and this piece is the only way they can---I would ask you to show me one.
But further, the prompt artist doesn't even make it. Even if they did spend the time, credit goes to the AI. The prompt artist is welcome to claim their prompt, I guess, but I don't often see them sharing those around. Would that even be entertaining?
I'm curious what could possibly convince you that someone put their soul into their work? Or why the assumption is always that ai is the only tool being used.
Here's a list of artists using ai tools in their work.
Again, ai is a tool. That's like saying digital artists didn't make their paintings, the printer did. Or maybe it's like saying the director didn't make the movie, the actors and cameras did. Actually, I really like the director analogy. They give directions to the actors as many times as they need to get the take they want, and then they finalize it later with post production.
When it contains their soul, I already said this.
Yes, it's very quaint.
Does the director take credit for their actor's acting, though? Usually, the actors win the award for best acting.
So an ai artist shouldn't earn any awards for best painting. Directors are still credited as artists. I'm not saying using ai makes you a painter, or any other kind of artist. I'm just saying that "ai" doesn't magically make a creation "not art". And yeah, it's possible to create zero effort slop with ai that can look a lot more interesting than the zero effort slop you can make with just paint, but a kid splattering paint everywhere doesn't make Jackson Pollock not be an artist.
But that's the same issue of making fakes that we've had for 30+ years since digital manipulation became feasible.
Yeah sure except now to make deep fake porn you just need to go 'famous star naked riding an old man's cock' set 8 images for each seed and set a job of 100 images, turn the air con to antarctic and make misogynistic videos about why movies are woke while the job slowly cooks your studio
Then when you finish you probably have some good images of whatever famous star you like getting railed by an old man and you can hop on YouTube and complain that people don't think you are an artist.
It requires almost no effort or talent to make a boatload of deep fake material. If you put any effort in you can orchestrate an image that looks pretty good.
Add to that the fact that before ai, unless you're already pretty famous, no one cares enough to make nonconsensual porn of you. After, anyone vaguely attracted to you can snap or find a few pictures and do a decent job of it without any skill or practice.
Ease of creation shouldn't have a bearing on whether or not the final result is illegal. A handmade vs AI generated fake nude should be treated the same way.
I didn't argue that it shouldn't. The difference is the ease of creation. It now requires no skill or talent to produce it so the game has changed and it needs to be addressed and not dismissed
deepfakes predate the ai boom. you don't need ai for deepfakes
Well, the word deep fake is literally from the ai boom, but I understand you to mean doctored images to make it look like someone was doing a porn when they didn't was already a thing.
And yeah, it very much was. But unless you were already a high profile individual like a popular celebrity, or mayyybe if you happened to be attractive to the one guy making them, they didn't tend to get made of you, and certainly not well. Now, anyone with a crush and a photo of you can make your face and a pretty decent approximation of your naked body move around and make noises while doing the nasty. And they can do it many orders of magnitude faster and with less skill than before.
So no, you don't need ai for it to exist and be somewhat problematic, but ai makes it much more problematic.
One ethics quandary is AI child porn. It at least provides a non-harmful outlet for an otherwise harmful act, but it could also feed addictions and feel insufficient.
You clearly haven't seen it, nor know anyone affected by it. It's like 99% noncon shit from people who are too creepy for artists to work with.
EDIT: Sums it up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aS97RKjEdI
100% that porn is not legal. It's also pretty easy to tell which demographic they're targeting with this.
Eh I agree with the reasonable takes here. Nothing wrong with generating that sort of stuff until it starts resembling the likeliness of a real living person. Then I think it’s just creepy; especially if for some reason you are sharing it 💀
Porn will be one of the first applied "arts" completely replaced by AI (including onlyfans like pseudo social interactions), which is great since in general it's a rather horrible industry.
I love the industry tbh
I enjoy the product, but the industry is pretty fucked.
I'm the inverse; I find the product boring but the industry is mad fun.
This shit is tight. I signed up. I consume porn I might as well help them make it