faceh
26d ago
This is true, but unless the intention is to keep salvaging old hardware as the various components die, we're still ending up in the same place.
(My actual guess is that capacity WILL expand to meet demand, so this is probably a shortish term crunch)
faceh
26d ago
Funny enough, this is the second young woman I've known in the past two years who ended up with an (older) guy who was divorced with a kid, given that she happened to know him from her past (read: she had a crush on the guy when she was in high school). Post-selection indeed. There was quite a bit more to it than that, though.
The other one actually married the guy.
In the current case, the lady appears to be enough of an improvement on his ex-wife that there might be an intentional jealousy play going on (also, he still has wedding photos with his ex up on his Facebook).
faceh
26d ago
I mean, I personally might challenge you to a friendly kickboxing match.
But if you also had a couple thousand supporters who would donate to your gofundme to support your trolling efforts, would you really be dissuaded?
faceh
26d ago
And with sex IN PARTICULAR, there is no reasonable way to go back and assess whether it was validly given or not or whether the lines were crossed. I noticed this issue in law school. "Wait, how the f@&k do you establish evidence for lack of consent when it all happens behind closed doors?"
Unless you film the whole interaction and that opens up the whole can of worms that we're discussing.
faceh
26d ago
I'm gonna say its comparable to any other gig economy/gamified app. The basics are pretty cheap, but they rack up all kinds of extra charges where-ever possible, and milking the whales is the real profit center.
Basically, buying an OF is marking yourself as a possible sucker just by putting the basic money down, and the ecosystem is going to do its damnedest to drain your wallet.
I haven't availed myself of prostitutes, the standard strip club experience annoys me enough with the constant upsell even knowing that they can't actually promise the outcome you're hoping for.
faceh
26d ago
I don't think it is useless, but man, people do not seem to really know what they mean when they say "consent." Worse still, they don't really know what they mean when they say they "consent" to some activity.
Sex in particular, the emotional valence of the moment, and the intensity, can shift by the minute. Then, reassessed after the act, someone may decide that some particular part of it they 'agreed' to in the moment was actually a violation.
faceh
26d ago
According to whom?
Well, the amorphous cultural norms brought on by the sexual revolution, more to the point.
Abortion? On demand. Contraception? Everywhere. Marriage? Optional.
As the biological consequences for having sex with whomever you wanted were abolished, so too were the social consequences.
The leftists you hate so much?
I do not hate them, but I do not want to live amongst them.
And if people were better about choosing to live around people who genuinely shared their preferences and norms, much of the problems we're discussing in this particular case would evaporate.
I mean, the Muslims have solved it their way. Keep women covered up whenever they're in public. This "works" but, (as I'm sure you'd agree) this requires unacceptable restriction on female autonomy. If they only live among other Muslims, this tends to work "OKAY" (women stoned to death unavailable for comment).
We westerners have clearly NOT solved it in a way that is satisfactory, and we seem to make up the rules on the spot based on the relative status of the involved parties. I'm reminded of this every time I see a gym influencer post a video of some guy allegedly gawking at her body without her consent, and posting said video so that all the anonymous onlookers can... gawk at her body.
We CANNOT sustain a system where people are allowed to wear whatever they want without regard to its reception by onlookers, and the onlookers are only 'allowed' to enjoy the view if they're approved as acceptable by the wearer.
I don't want to live amongst people with such irreconcilable standards.
I think pretty clearly it's morally objectionable to generate AI porn of someone who is neither a sex worker nor someone who wants AI porn generated of them
What about making an unflattering caricature art of them? Or depicting them in (non-graphic) torture scenes? Or just change their skin tone to a different color on purpose? This all seems like we're treating nudity (or even just softcore titillation) as a special pleading.
At least, with kids, I think there's a sustainable moral argument for why we don't want people sexualizing them, and cast a suspicious eye at those who do.
And question I've asked before, what if you find someone who is a very close lookalike and have them pose for nude shots and post them, but never actually imply that was your goal? It was a common enough practice among pornographers back in the day.
It seems like this is basically suggesting norms of "look at whatever content I choose to post, but do not ever interact in any way I might find unpleasant."
Which runs extremely counter to how internet culture as a whole works.
Well I'm gonna have to drill down deeper as to your logic here, which I can accept as facially valid.
What is actually 'removed' when the image is published?
Similar with the secret, a breach of trust is a breach of trust, but unless you signed an NDA that expressly laid out how to calculate damages, then your remedy is "never trust that person again."
Vs. losing a kidney or having your money taken, where you can absolutely point to the thing that you lost and demand recompense for.
I would not be arguing this if we were talking about actual physical rape of a person, which is clearly a violation of a concept of 'bodily autonomy,' I think taking a photograph of someone/something is inherently less of a violation.
Publishing a photo is a step beyond, I can absolutely grant, but kind of as I alluded to before, the only actual dividing line I see between whether its a demeaning violation or not isn't in how the viewers receive and react to the image, but whether the original subject will get any money from its publication, not that they have lost something that was in their possession.
Like, consider a situation where a woman takes a nude photo, then fat fingers it and accidentally sends it to the wrong dude. Then, mortified, she demands that he delete it and excoriates him if he comments on it approvingly. Or comments on it at all.
Is HE in the wrong if he views and enjoys this image that wasn't intended for his consumption? Or is SHE in the wrong for sending unsolicited pornography to an unwitting recipient? Is he obligated to delete it? What's the difference? Once it has been sent, how is she harmed by it arriving to the wrong person?
Because I think if we take your express logic to any extreme, it also becomes objectionable to imagine someone naked, especially if you derive pleasure from it.
faceh
26d ago
Yeah, but she also wants to completely dodge the reputation that comes with trading her sexuality for money.
And of course, there's still often a guy in the picture actually arranging for her to sell this stuff. In this case, OF clearly profits far and above what all but their top-performing producers do. And its owned by a dude.
I'm not even denying that there's a fundamental transactional nature to all this stuff, even if you're in it for marriage and kids... its just that its now literally reduced to a commodity that gets haggled over, and people who 'have' to pay for it are viewed as losers, whilst anyone who is successful at getting attractive women to give it up without explicitly paying is either extremely crafty or is inherently high status.
Let me repeat that: sex is a commodity which can be purchased at various price points depending on the quality, so its not hard to acquire in the abstract, but being able to acquire it without spending money somehow makes you a God amongst men. Our old-school ape-wiring seems somewhat at odds with our later 'homo economicus' upgrades.
faceh
26d ago
which kid character was ugly?
Dustin is notable for having an actual deformity. Jonathan is contrasted to Steve as the creepy-looking awkward kid. And there's Derek.
Oh, and Barb, who isn't 'ugly' but could fairly be called 'Homely' and was, I'd say, designed to represent a particular archetype.
faceh
26d ago
There's a difference but I get confused about the secular reasons for why its meaningful.
Sex and nudity is supposedly no big deal, especially if you're attending a pride parade, but it absolutely IS a big deal when its someone's nudes hitting the internet, evidently. Shame, embarrassment, I dunno, it seems just taken as a given that it demeans the subject to be exposed in such a way. But if they publish those exact same images themselves, it is not demeaning?
There was a minor hullabaloo when I was in college involving 'Slutwalks' making it acceptable for women to wear skimpy clothes in public. And the "Free the Nipple" movement which, among other things, tried to make it acceptable for female nipples to appear on, e.g., instagram.
But then what I noticed is that almost no women (well, no attractive women) used this newfound power to actually go around in public topless or scantily clad, or post topless shots to IG. THEN came OF where they could monetize it and things REALLY got locked down.
So culturally we're told sex and nudity aren't a big deal, don't be prudes. But ECONOMICALLY, people (mostly males) spend billions upon billions of dollars to acquire sex and view nude women. So the only distinction I can really grasp is "am I getting paid for this or not." Which applies to many things, granted.
But where does that leave us?
faceh
26d ago
Well if GPU and Ram prices are any indication, we might get some de facto restrictions in that very few can afford a rig powerful enough to actually produce the images.
faceh
26d ago
While I get that, you can still find strip clubs if you're willing to leave the house (this might be the true motivation, the desire to never go out in public).
This is where my model of the goonbrain really fails.
If you're going to such absolute lengths to be 'certain' that the girl in question actually exists, surely its better to pay for in person companionship?
It doesn't parse, for me, how you can require a physical person actually exist for you to get off to the content, but NOT also inherently prefer that person be physically present. Which obviates the fear of it being faked, entirely.
Although I guess I can imagine a guy who is deathly afraid of getting arrested for soliciting a prostitute which drives him to avoid paying for sex.
In a world where social shame was still effective it'd be a pretty damning to do it and would probably result in ostracization. Not clear what one has to do to 'compensate' for the situation though.
Similar to being a peeping tom, or a subway groper or anything else that intrudes on people's strongest held social boundaries, even when the harm inflicted is de minimus.
But the problem is that shame would also kick in for stuff like a young girl hyping up her debut on Onlyfans once she turns 18 (link is mostly SFW but you'll see some thirst trapping). The puritanical ethics required here would condemn both the voyeuristic act and the exhibitionist act.
Its rather schizophrenic that there's basically unlimited tolerance for (adult) women to produce pornographic content of themselves, but shame is still heaped upon the consumers, as if these weren't both inseparably linked and necessary components of the "empowerment" equation here.
Like I said before, worst of all worlds.
Your logic suggests that you'd have no objection if a 13 year old girl published nudes with knowledge and consent.
Is that true?
Is consent the defining factor here?
I just want something on record.
The one that I like a lot is Canopy Theory, which suggested that earth was surrounded by a layer of water (vapor) which might have protected against harmful radiation and increased air pressure at the surface, which could have allowed some types of creatures to grow larger than 'normal' and might explain the giant bugs, extra plant life, even dinosaurs.
Then some large interference (a sufficiently large asteroid strike?) broke the equilibrium and the water came crashing down in a short period of time, eventually settling under the surface and in the ocean basins.
Its sometimes proffered as a way to explain how so many cultures in antiquity had flood myths arising around the same time. Which would be wild since that implies it wasn't that long ago on geological timescales.
faceh
26d ago
I'd blocked almost all memories of the Hopper-in-Russia plotline. But yeah.
I also criticized how they immediately undid his death from Season 3. The fakeout, especially with how implausible it was, just ruined the weight of that moment.
Hopper spends the ENTIRE FREAKING SHOW sort of wanting to die, and his arc of eventually wanting to go on living (and desperately trying to protect El) was one of the few things that buoyed it through the rough times.
Another valid criticism is unwillingness to impose permanent consequences on ANY of the main cast. I can almost understand not wanting to kill them. But they didn't even want to give, say, Max, any permanent disabilities for being in a coma for what, a year and a half?
faceh
26d ago
Yes, but usually a component of those is that someone sent you those images, and DID NOT publish them themselves, so you're violating their 'privacy' interest by publishing these salacious images sans their consent.
Modifying an image they themselves published seems categorically different.
faceh
26d ago
I thought DignifAI had legs, but of course the gooners demand the opposite service.
I think it's still demeaning to reduce a real person to the status of a sex object without their consent.
Reputational harm is covered under libel/slander/defamation laws, but does require other people to actually believe the falsehoods that someone published.
So exactly how much modification would it take before its no longer 'believable.' If they stylize it as a different artstyle?
I keep pointing out that with AI, whatever guidelines you put in place, the AI can tiptoe RIGHT up to them and stick a single pixel over the line.
Ultimately this is also why I don't see how Onlyfans continues to exist as a business model for flesh-and-blood women after this year.
faceh
26d ago
From a legal standpoint, what is the theory for the 'harm' caused in this instance. And to whom?
Liability of any kind usually rests on the idea that someone's interests were injured and in need of redress.
We are able to statutorily 'create' interests (the Americans with Disabilities Act did this, for instance) but I think we'd smack into 1A issues trying to make it completely illegal to post manipulated images of people who... are already posting images of themselves online.
Most obvious angle is copyright/IP, but they're still sorting that out for AI works.
I'd kinda love for them to go at it from the obscenity angle. Because that would also suggest that the women posting thirst traps are doing something wrong too.
starring a 14 year old playing a 9 year old in full jailbait uniform for basically no reason (clearly, practical for trudging around in the forest and desert heat)[1]. You do kind of forget that after a while, but it presses the "child beauty pageant" button.
I immediately wondered why they swapped out the actress for Holly with one that was, for lack of a better term, "lolita-esque."
The show was pretty good at finding 'real' looking actors for the kids, even at the expense of them being 'ugly'. Derek being a great example. Holly though, hoo boy. Looked like they even gave her perfectly coiffed eyebrows and she kept the pigtails the entire time rather than swapping to a more practical ponytail. I couldn't ignore that it was like watching a de-aged Sidney Sweeney.
This was made worse when she's next to Max, who is a GREAT representation of a tomboy.
faceh
26d ago
Also note that they figured out a perfect counter to the psychic kids in the meantime. They just didn't bother to adapt to the other creatures.
Also also note that based on Brenner's notes (loved that asspull) they could close the portal at any time.
That was another 'hilarious' nitpick. "Oh, so Vecna is going to combine our world and his, creating a literal hellscape on earth, probably killing most or all humans... and we just figured out how to instantly sever the connection so he can't do that. Problem solved."
"No, you see there's like 12 kids we have to save first."
"Yes yes very heroic, but did you miss the part where everyone dies if he does this? And we have an easy solution? We'll just tell their parents the kids were already dead if that helps."
Blowing up the exotic matter solves the entirety of the problem, and the only reason the kidnapping was really part of the plot was to give them something to actually fight. It wasn't even explained how the kids helped him with this plan.
Yeah its a pretty agreeable resolution to use short, sharp corporal punishment as a deterrent for antisocial behavior.
Good luck getting anyone to agree about what to do with your daughter if she were to start sending actual nudes around the school to a bunch of guys, though.
Bravado tends to fail, there.
More options
Context Copy link