People Are Using AI to Create Influencers With Down Syndrome Who Sell Nudes
-
Difficult to know what even to say about this. It might be legal? But it is a deep violation of the social contract.
It’s going to be some form of IP infringement.
-
At some point, the Maria account also posted the exact same videos as the Maria Dopari account but with a different face. It appears that for three videos posted between March 6 and 8, the Maria account accidentally used a face from one of its other fake personas, called Lana, which posts under several usernames under some variation of lana.down, the biggest of which has of 43,800 followers. The Maria account then continued posting with the face it used regularly. In some cases 404 Media was able to identify the original videos that were being stolen by these accounts.
Wtf.
I was still surprised... We live in a world that has "rule 34" and yet I was still surprised to read that...
-
And I thought that Shrimp Jesus was bad already.Not even shrimp Jesus can save us from this one
-
At some point, the Maria account also posted the exact same videos as the Maria Dopari account but with a different face. It appears that for three videos posted between March 6 and 8, the Maria account accidentally used a face from one of its other fake personas, called Lana, which posts under several usernames under some variation of lana.down, the biggest of which has of 43,800 followers. The Maria account then continued posting with the face it used regularly. In some cases 404 Media was able to identify the original videos that were being stolen by these accounts.
Wtf.
"I do not actually have don’t syndrome.”
LMAO please stop it, please .... :-)))
-
At some point, the Maria account also posted the exact same videos as the Maria Dopari account but with a different face. It appears that for three videos posted between March 6 and 8, the Maria account accidentally used a face from one of its other fake personas, called Lana, which posts under several usernames under some variation of lana.down, the biggest of which has of 43,800 followers. The Maria account then continued posting with the face it used regularly. In some cases 404 Media was able to identify the original videos that were being stolen by these accounts.
Wtf.
-
Difficult to know what even to say about this. It might be legal? But it is a deep violation of the social contract.
I love how there's that one weirdo downvoting all these replies against the multitude of people who find this distasteful. You know who you are, you twisted little wretch.
-
You're probably right, but this feels an awful lot like a 'violence in video games will lead to violence in real life' argument.
While I don't disagree with you, what if the violence in the game in question was specifically against people with Down's Syndrome? I think that may bring it a little closer to being equal - in terms of the analogy, anyway. I don't think the big problem here is the AI porn necessarily, so much as the fetishization of not just a minority, but one with an impairment. (Which I think is only further compounded by said impairment being largely cognitive/developmental in nature, as well.)
-
At some point, the Maria account also posted the exact same videos as the Maria Dopari account but with a different face. It appears that for three videos posted between March 6 and 8, the Maria account accidentally used a face from one of its other fake personas, called Lana, which posts under several usernames under some variation of lana.down, the biggest of which has of 43,800 followers. The Maria account then continued posting with the face it used regularly. In some cases 404 Media was able to identify the original videos that were being stolen by these accounts.
Wtf.
I'm going to say that these degenerates need to be publicly humiliated and banned from ever owning or using any computing device ever again.
-
At some point, the Maria account also posted the exact same videos as the Maria Dopari account but with a different face. It appears that for three videos posted between March 6 and 8, the Maria account accidentally used a face from one of its other fake personas, called Lana, which posts under several usernames under some variation of lana.down, the biggest of which has of 43,800 followers. The Maria account then continued posting with the face it used regularly. In some cases 404 Media was able to identify the original videos that were being stolen by these accounts.
Wtf.
The fuck
-
It's promoting the fetishization of already deeply marginalized and possibly easily exploited people due to their genetics.
This is going to create a subclass of gooners who want to groom and exploit the mentally handicapped in real life which is definitely illegal.
While I do wholeheartedly agree that promoting fetitization of marginalized people who are vulnerable is despicable, evil, and just about any other pejorative you can think of, it's a thought crime.
It's not illegal to create digital art (even the disgusting kind) which depicts fictitious grown adults doing grown adult things.
I would argue that if any such subclass of degenerate exists they already exist. You're not creating this subclass and any claim of expansion of such a subclass would be anecdotal at best and bullshit at worst. If they're out there they're out there. It's a chicken and egg problem. Which came first, the pornography or the degenerate?
We have a constitutionally protected right in this country to freedom of expression and that right cannot be infringed simply because you believe that it could lead to more people being taken advantage of. The right to that expression must be protected regardless of repugnant you believe the resultant actions are. As history is shown any number of times the restriction of any right is a slippery slope in any capacity.
As a society we need to strongly condemn these actions, and we need to ensure that the most vulnerable among us are absolutely protected. But as soon as you start making thought crimes illegal you open the door to any number of machinations. How long before the extreme right use that precedent to start prosecuting individuals for other thought crimes? I would bet my last dollar it wouldn't take very long...
-
At some point, the Maria account also posted the exact same videos as the Maria Dopari account but with a different face. It appears that for three videos posted between March 6 and 8, the Maria account accidentally used a face from one of its other fake personas, called Lana, which posts under several usernames under some variation of lana.down, the biggest of which has of 43,800 followers. The Maria account then continued posting with the face it used regularly. In some cases 404 Media was able to identify the original videos that were being stolen by these accounts.
Wtf.
Capitalism breeds innovation
-
It's promoting the fetishization of already deeply marginalized and possibly easily exploited people due to their genetics.
This is going to create a subclass of gooners who want to groom and exploit the mentally handicapped in real life which is definitely illegal.
Either it's "violent videogames don't create serial killers" or "disabled porn causes disabled fetishes"
You can't have both old man.
-
Well you can always count on algo to deal you some fucking wierd slop
Also, this account is tagged as a bot. Are you Russian?
are you serious lol
-
I don't think he is watching. Clearly no one is moderating earth atm.
-
At some point, the Maria account also posted the exact same videos as the Maria Dopari account but with a different face. It appears that for three videos posted between March 6 and 8, the Maria account accidentally used a face from one of its other fake personas, called Lana, which posts under several usernames under some variation of lana.down, the biggest of which has of 43,800 followers. The Maria account then continued posting with the face it used regularly. In some cases 404 Media was able to identify the original videos that were being stolen by these accounts.
Wtf.
That... Is certainly a way to combine words together.
-
You're probably right, but this feels an awful lot like a 'violence in video games will lead to violence in real life' argument.
It's the same argument. Even if this is a wild new kinda distasteful it's not going to have any real affects in the real world.
-
Difficult to know what even to say about this. It might be legal? But it is a deep violation of the social contract.
I feel complicated about AI porn in general, but I'm not even all that offended about somebody with down syndrome having an onlyfans, provided they have the cognitive function to understand those actions, and I certainly have met individuals with down syndrome who do.
-
are you serious lol
About bot tagged account acting like a normal person?
-
While I do wholeheartedly agree that promoting fetitization of marginalized people who are vulnerable is despicable, evil, and just about any other pejorative you can think of, it's a thought crime.
It's not illegal to create digital art (even the disgusting kind) which depicts fictitious grown adults doing grown adult things.
I would argue that if any such subclass of degenerate exists they already exist. You're not creating this subclass and any claim of expansion of such a subclass would be anecdotal at best and bullshit at worst. If they're out there they're out there. It's a chicken and egg problem. Which came first, the pornography or the degenerate?
We have a constitutionally protected right in this country to freedom of expression and that right cannot be infringed simply because you believe that it could lead to more people being taken advantage of. The right to that expression must be protected regardless of repugnant you believe the resultant actions are. As history is shown any number of times the restriction of any right is a slippery slope in any capacity.
As a society we need to strongly condemn these actions, and we need to ensure that the most vulnerable among us are absolutely protected. But as soon as you start making thought crimes illegal you open the door to any number of machinations. How long before the extreme right use that precedent to start prosecuting individuals for other thought crimes? I would bet my last dollar it wouldn't take very long...
I'm going to take your comment at face value and go with the charitable interpretation that you have sincere beliefs and are sharing them, but I'm also going to explain why doing so is difficult for me and hopefully addressing your points.
It’s not illegal to create digital art (even the disgusting kind) which depicts fictitious grown adults doing grown adult things.
True, but someone with a developmental disability in which they remain very much a child for their whole life is clearly a different thing. I am fairly sure that in the US at least, creating digital art of children being involved in sexual situations is illegal, and as such, I believe by extension that since a developmentally disabled person cannot be considered a "grown adult" that arguably the same should be true for them.
I would argue that if any such subclass of degenerate exists they already exist.
And I would argue otherwise. There are many, many ideas that I was exposed to throughout my life that had never entered my mental lexicon until the idea was presented to me. Nobody can know everything, and so I don't actually think this is a chicken and egg problem at all. When someone previously has no idea such a thing even exits, and then is presented with such an idea, definitively, one of those things came first.
We have a constitutionally protected right in this country to freedom of expression and that right cannot be infringed simply because you believe that it could lead to more people being taken advantage of
Not everyone lives in the USA. Secondly, that "constitutionally protected right" has literally been hijacked by "free speech warriors" to infiltrate our government with explicit intent to control speech. That's literally happening right now. Elon Musk is a particularly egregious example of someone deeply hypocritical about this subject, who claims he is a "free speech extremist" and claims that he would never ban any type of speech on his social media... yet does exactly that, literally constantly. I don't feel the need to show as much here because it's well documented elsewhere. He also is literally one of the people infiltrating our government and using keyword filters to delete US history from government websites, so extremely that we lost evidence of the Enola Gay and the Navajo Code Talkers. So while in charge of Xitter, it can be argued he isn't an arm of the government and not restricting free speech on his own website (it can still be argued that his stances don't match his actions) in his position at DOGE, he is literally an arm of the government screeching about "free speech" while simultaneously banning ideas he doesn't like.
Once again in regards to not everyone living in the USA, Europe has many different countries which have very strict speech laws, and none of those countries are facing the same loss of human rights and access to historical information that the US is under a so-called free speech supporting government administration. Germany has long has strict rules against Nazi imagery and Nazi speech since the end of World War II and I would not consider Germany to be slipping into fascism because of it. It's arguably something that has held the tide of fascism at bay by refusing to let people try to rewrite history, as Musk regularly uses his free speech to do in regards to World War II, like claiming that Hitler didn't kill anybody, he only ordered others to kill people, and so it's really the evil bureaucrats who followed his orders who were at fault. The man who gave the orders and the bureaucrats are all at fault, in reality. Free speech advocates often hide behind it to split hairs and attempt to repaint history in vile ways and I don't personally think having laws that prevent things like, say, holocaust denial, are bad in and of themselves.
How long before the extreme right use that precedent to start prosecuting individuals for other thought crimes?
The extreme right are happily using free speech as a shield to do that literally right now and we are literally in a constitutional crisis because of it. Wake up.
-
You're probably right, but this feels an awful lot like a 'violence in video games will lead to violence in real life' argument.
I'm fairly sure it's not legal to create cartoons of children having sex with adults in the USA, so why should it be any different for humans who are mentally children?
