OpenAI draws a line between AI “smut” and porn. Experts fear it’s all unhealthy.
See full article...
See full article...
ChatGPT may soon become “sexy suicide coach,” OpenAI advisor reportedly warned
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Well … the first amendment to which you refer
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is firstly the freedom from religion, a prohibition from congress imposing religion,
and only secondly followed by a prohibition against restricting the practice of it, or speech, or press, or to gather, or complain and seek redress from government
And none of those ‘rights’ are absolute, all having been interpreted to have numerous legal exceptions and restrictions
… and as far as that somehow the authority of constitution somehow being the definitive opinion on this matter you have to acknowledge what the articles of constitution means has been openly reinterpreted and redefined repeatedly since its creation (often for quite cynical reasons)
the second amendment is a prime example of this
… and as far as your ‘.. lots of people abuse alcohol and abuse drugs but we don’t ban drugs ‘
… yeah We do,
we definitely ban drugs and alcohol .. not all but some of them and we definitely regulate and restrict the rest
you try to sell traditional applejack or moonshine with a high wood alcohol content on the open market
You try to offer uppers or downers out of the trunk of your car parked outside the local school yard
when the government decide somethings likely hood of damage through abuse, or even use, we definitely make it illegal or heavily regulate its availability
… and you know what … that has extended to religion as well
If you don’t think that’s true check your Native American history
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Well sorry to disappoint you, but just because that's an easy argument and/or you don't like it, doesn't make it not true. Or please explain to me how it is not.
Also, I didn't say "it's okay". In fact I left out an important point, the "demand" is not static, and OpenAI launching that could increase the demand sooner that if they didn't. It could also give people a taste, and they then want completely uncensored AI porn which they find elsewhere. Or it could prevent the rise of AI porn giant that doesn't do any censorship. I honestly don't know which way it could go.
What I do know is I'm tired of "OpenAI is evil, none of this bad stuff would exist if it wasn't for OpenAI" which is wrong, simplistic, lazy, and doesn't lead to anything approaching a useful debate.
Upvote
-12
(1
/
-13)
While not absolute, 1st amendment challenges have won similar battles around TV, movies, books, and video-games that have inspired various murders and suicides. (Also bans on sex, politics, religion, etc.)
Other countries (UK) have been at least a little more comfortable banning media like that.
Right now there a decent number of countries talking about banning some kids from using social networks for similar reasons.
Anyway a better question might be-- when has it been a good idea to ban media?
Other countries (UK) have been at least a little more comfortable banning media like that.
Right now there a decent number of countries talking about banning some kids from using social networks for similar reasons.
Anyway a better question might be-- when has it been a good idea to ban media?
Last edited:
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
It is not "okay."
If you don't understand that, then I cannot help you or the people in your life.
Upvote
4
(7
/
-3)
What is not okay ? I specifically said that I never said it was okay. And with all I said in my post, that you just reply with this... and an insult...
You really suck at this discussion thing.
Upvote
-11
(0
/
-11)
It is not ?
Let's imagine that the first porn video company had decided not doing porn, then we wouldn't have porn ? Reality doesn't work like that.
Upvote
-9
(0
/
-9)
Why limit yourself to porn video … ?
What about 16 or 8 millimeter porn film industry ? That wasn’t a small industry
I don’t know how old you are but I can remember when almost every medium sized town in north America had a small porn theatre - blankets and all .. like the one in which they arrested peewee
And as far as video ..do you just mean streaming or all formats of hone video?
Are you including 3/4 inch sp or betacam … ? you’d be surprised how long 3/4inch sp held on in certain industries
What about porn magazines? .. most early adopters of the internet were the porn magazines .. and not just playboy or hustler .. there were dozens more
( .. my father was an art professor- and collector, Indeed his first PHD back in the 50s was on erotic art .. and he had quite a collection and my first job in highschool was working mid nite shift in your choice video aka 24hour video aka red hot video during the aids home video boom, then I worked my way up in the film industry - including years of lighting indies and advertisements including Barbie commercials (to my deep personal shame))
…so I have a bit of a professional interest in the ‘porn video industry’
And can say that from my experience the guys who did the first porn of any particular media format .. like say the first livecast, first streaming, first video, first photoshoot, first AI girlfriend..
Those guys were already doing porn - or thinking about how to do it, let alone if..
For quite a -while most likely way before they decided to start a company to do it in a new format
And there were guys already doing it before them ‘
So, …
You talking about the first english porn/erotica magazine? … the pink pearl?
Or you including ancient sex manuals (religious or otherwise) ?
If were talking the lineage of the industry at which point do you want to cut it out to claim Your point makes any sense as an analogy ?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Whoa, calm down, impressive but I really don't know what your point is.
Upvote
-7
(1
/
-8)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I think his point was that economics is not about one man's decision to sell a product, but more like an unstoppable tide, which you illustrate here.
I think you and he are both correct that we have a weird and unnatural focus on the titans of industry. People like Gerald Ford and Bill Gates. While they may or may not be good at their jobs, they certainly aren't necessary for the market to exist.
That's not to say it's impossible to ban all the things you hate. Just hard. Obviously people always find a way.
Last edited:
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
The rights are not absolute, no, but 2+ centuries of case law says the government must demonstrate a compelling interest in restricting those rights. Not just an interest, but a compelling interest - that's a higher legal threshold to clear. And the government must restrict the enumerated right in the least intrusive way possible to achieve its interest.
I never said we don't restrict drugs or alcohol. I said we don't ban them all outright.
We don't have a ban on all narcotics. Just those without a demonstrated medical use...and marijuana because of cultural reasons. Cocaine, for example, is not a Schedule 1 drug like heroin. Cocaine can be legally prescribed in specific circumstances. We also don't ban all opioids despite all the abuse of them by people. Restrict their usage heavily? Yes. Restrict who can prescribe them? Yes. Restrict who can carry stocks and sell them? Yes. Ban them? No.
We do not ban alcohol. We restrict it, but not ban it. You can't drink it legally until you're 21 in this country, you can't manufacture more than a certain amount without a license (to allow for personal consumption), and you can't sell it without a license. But we don't ban it. Even absinthe isn't banned anymore at the federal level.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Why would anyone knowingly associate themselves with a company that makes available such a dangerous product? Surely there are less salacious alternatives.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
The basic problem is that it's easier to keep a child from drinking a beer than it is to keep them from using an unlocked browser. That's basically the whole conversation here in a nutshell.
Folks want to save kids from AI. They also want to save them from hentai and social networks and online bullies and tiktok and video games and 4chan and Telegram and the manosphere. And the only way to do that is to ban those things entirely.
Only people are particular, they may love Tiktok but hate Rogan. Or love Slot machines but hate LGTBQ forums. Or love Hentai but hate AI. Or whatever. So most people don't want to ban it all, but whatever aspect they see as both unlikable and threatening.
My guess is if we can't ban the worst parts of the internet, the things we actually agree are beyond the pale, then we're not going to ban AI, which people don't broadly agree upon at all. But who knows.
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Beware of falling into the trap of anachronism when talking American legal history
Especially when making assumptions of what the legal precedents of case law says about the interpretation of ‘human rights’ over US’s relatively short history (especially doing so from the perspective of a forum post of a tech website)
There was a reason the civil rights movement was so desperately needed in the early 60s that people willing sacrificed their lives for the cause.. and there’s a reason it’s relatively minor gains are still struggling to hold territory today
Black men where technically granted the right to vote in 1870 (we all know what I mean by ‘technically’) but woman were only given that right in 1920, just over halfway thru your 2+ years of caselaw.
Many aspects of Native American religion was prohibited by law until 1978 when The American Indian Religious Freedom Act was enacted to return basic civil liberties to American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiian.
And if you want to talk case law about restricting civil rights you can’t do that with out at least acknowledging the Chinese exclusion, Japanese Internment, or Mexican Repatriations acts
(for context - particularly in our current situation- that last one was the forced repatriation of about 2million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in 1929 and 1939. Forty to sixty percent of which were citizens of the United States, and overwhelmingly children)
And these are just the ones with major media attention.. they are hardly alone with the cases of smaller racial social or civil groups having their ‘inalienable rights’ disregarded by judiciary being far too many to count.
Not to mention slavery, which was a legal institution for almost half of those 2+ centuries .. and defacto tolerated with a wink fact of life and industry over large parts of America for most of the rest
And as far as Alcohol and drugs we do definitely ban them ..no not all of them … but the ones which we consider a serious risk to public safety
To return your analogy to the topic at hand
No one here is even suggesting we ban all technology or all telecommunications or even the entire internet… just one specific aspect of it that is considered a serious risk to public safety
And I’m not even making a stand on that issue … I’m just pointing out the flaws in your analogy
Last edited:
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
With a fairly well-documented "loneliness epidemic" out there, I suspect a lot more people than we think could get hooked by one of these bots. Maybe not setting out like that, but in just "giving it a try" end up forming that connection.
And after the AI bros have milked all that sweet, sweet cash they can walk away and let the mental health fallout break the healthcare system (at least in the US where it's already fragile). But hey, line went up, wee!!!!
And after the AI bros have milked all that sweet, sweet cash they can walk away and let the mental health fallout break the healthcare system (at least in the US where it's already fragile). But hey, line went up, wee!!!!
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
No, you're being pedantic.
I started with a very basic statement: that somebody might do something stupid is not sufficient reason to ban something, and then proceeded to cite two specific examples of drugs and alcohol as examples of how we don't outright ban those things despite all the stupid things people do when under the effects of those substances. You then saw fit to argue as if details of numerous specific instances somehow invalidate my overall argument.
That the government does ban things does not invalidate the statement "somebody might do something stupid is not sufficient reason to ban something" since it's the level of harm that gets evaluated, not just that harm in general might occur. That our government, comprised of humans, has not universally protected the civil rights or civil liberties of all humans within its jurisdiction since our inception does not invalidate that statement, either.
I can, in fact, talk about case law AND not go into detail about all the ways the law has been abused or been interpreted to not apply to people. That we've been in a 250-year slog/fight to get us to "the law applies equally to all humans, citizens or not, within the jurisdiction of the government" doesn't invalidate the decisions that restrict the ways in which the government is permitted to restrict/ban things. There are two different fights there:
1) How the law has been interpreted to offer protections or restrictions.
2) Who the law has been interpreted to apply protect/restrict.
Have those interpretations changed over time? Absolutely. Because the interpretations are by humans. Dred Scott vs Brown v. Topeka is just one example. But, again, that does not invalidate the statement "that somebody might do something stupid is not sufficient reason to ban something."
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
So, to be pedantic, do you accept that Banning a product that causes serious harm has extensive precedent in US law and is legally justified ?(constitutionally or otherwise)
I will concede that its not justified to ban a product that if used stupidly (in a way not intended) which causes serious harm
(In analogy: you don’t ban a cleaning product that if drunk will poison someone, but you do ban a beverage that if drunk will poison them)
So … if using a chatbot the way its intended to be used causes serious harm
-why is banning- or prohibiting- that not legally justified?
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Pretty much all laws exist to discourage someone from doing something stupid. I think you have the burden of proof backwards here with respect to your contention.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
According to our system of government the burden of proof is more or less on the government to show a ban is necessary instead of on individuals to show an activity should be permitted.
Yes, if it's not an enumerated right then this SCOTUS is less likely to force the government to make a case. But our system of government also has the check of voting - if enough voters don't approve of the laws being passed in our name then we can elect new leadership to change the laws.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
I hear you, but there being "a reason" to ban something and meeting a legal burden to do so are different for differing rights, and, as you say, our system has ways of addressing different things differently. Not always quickly, not always on the first or second or eighteenth try, of course...
I tend to prefer not having throwing up our hands in hopelessness set as the default.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Might be worth looking for specific case law here. There are many examples of books, movies, TV, and internet where people commit rape or murder or suicide after watching them or reading about them, or talking about them on social media.
Of course it's very hard to prove the media caused the suicide or the copycat crime, since they usually have underlying issues, and may have done something similar anyway. But there are some particular cases. eg a 5 year old hangs themselves after seeing it in on TV.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
… hmmm
Like this? >
Michelle Carter Case: The 'Texting-Suicide' Case
Michelle Carter was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for encouraging the suicide of her then-boyfriend Conrad Roy III in 2014
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Yes. As mentioned in another thread, I think it's an exception, but it is certainly a related example.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Or … what about the repeatedly banned website
Sanctioned Suicide?
The difference in both cases from the example of a book or tv show precedent is that that are individually targeted .. not promoting suicide or death in general .. but instead are promoting or encouraging a specific individual to do so in a targeted manner
Which is pretty close to identical to the examples presented of chatbots doing so.
Last edited:
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Sure, Sanctioned suicide also a good example. Reddit banned them originally. Australia, Germany, Italy, and UK have battled with them, with mixed results. In the US, congress and AG pushed to reduce their presence on Google, but never ban them. If I google Sanctioned Suicide, the first result is a popular forum about suicide.
Also, I think the notion of targeted is not well defined here. Since obviously like 99.999% of chats aren't about suicide, and in the chats about suicide 99.9% are discouraging it. You can certainly make a case that the remaining numbers are completely unacceptable--I hope someone does-- but it's not really analogous to anything else.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Oh Yeah .. didn’t say it was successful ban - or if such a ban could be successful in face of a dedicated effort to circumvent it
I’m pretty sure if chatgtp or Grok wanted to go underground and bypass a ban they could do so as well
Merely suggesting its a example more similar to chatbots than a book or TV show episode in that it’s specifically/individually targeted
Not promoting suicide or murder in general or abstract but rather promoting that’s targeted in particular manner towards a specific person, or multiple specific persons, individually
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)