I dont think that this is really true, I strongly suspect that most people I know would consider someone drawing porn of them without consent a majorly icky thing to do, and would probably consider someone doing that to someone else to be a creep for doing so. The reason such drawings are less an issue is at least partly that the barrier to entry is lower with AI, since it takes a certain amount of skill and time investment to draw something like that such as to be clearly recognizable as any specific real person.
Trying to educate people to avoid all porn sounds even less likely to be successful than trying to ban things on the internet, because you cant simply teach people to not get horny in response to certain visual stimuli, and trying to make people averse to depictions of anything sexual will just lead to a repressed society that still consumes porn but is even more embarrassed to talk about it, which causes more harm than good and still doesnt solve the problem at hand. Its also a misunderstanding of the issue anyway, because the problem isnt porn as a general concept, or even the use of AI to create it, but the creation of some that depicts real people against the wishes of those people, and secondarily the possibility that it could be used to make other people believe the event actually happened due to the ability to create photorealistic images and video.
Would banning it make it go away? No, of course not, but it would make it a bit riskier to make and spread, and that would reduce the number that do it. We already have certain kinds of porn banned due to requiring abuse to create, like CSAM, and while that certainly hasnt made it disappear, its not something one encounters regularly either. An argument of “we shouldnt ban this because bans dont work on the internet” would apply equally to our ban on that material too after all.
I mean, it did bother people, it just took more skill and time at using photo manipulation software to make it look convincing such that it was rare for someone to both have the expertise and be willing to put in the time, so it didnt come up often enough to be a point of discussion. The AI just makes it quick and easy enough to become more common.
Maybe it could be for the psychological benefit of the person wearing the uniform? Like, if youve got a post scarcity utopian society where people dont need to work, but youve got some job that needs doing that can be a bit dangerous or tedious at times and therefore might be inherently unattractive to many, like ship’s crew, and you cant just pay people a bunch to do it because you’ve done away with money, one incentive you might have to offer is social status and a sense of personal achievement. In which case, you might use bright flashy displays of rank, because it gives the person that has attained it a bright flashy reminder of “hey look at you, you’ve achieved this fancy rank that everyone that didnt join the fleet or didnt get as far as you yet doesnt have”, and gives any regular civilian that sees you a blatant reminder of “hey, this could be you, if you’re willing to put in the work for it”
Honestly, I dont think this is truly stupidity, at least beyond what is typical of everyone else, because intelligence is not the same thing as knowing facts. I dont think being uninformed is really the best word for it either, because if someone tells you something is true that conflicts with what you already think is true, just accepting this isnt really the intelligent thing to do, verifying it would be, and as most people do not have the expertise to verify most things, the best one can usually do is look to those one trusts as a source of information, and if the people that back up this new information are unknown to you but the people you already trust assure you that what you already believe to be true, is true, you dont really have a good reason to abandon that. What I think this is then is that a huge fraction of the population puts their trust in the wrong people, partly due to self perpetuating bad luck (one’s parents and family are likely to be the first people one trusts, and thus whoever they trust is likely to seem trustworthy to you as well, and if you are unlucky with what group you are born into and they trust the wrong sources of information, there’s therefore a decent likelihood that you will as well), and partly due to the fact that those that wish to intentionally deceive for their own ends are likely to know all kinds of psychological tricks to make themselves seem more trustworthy, and probably will be more willing to use them to manipulate public opinion to their own ends than an expert that just wants to share what they know.
or for a TLDR: I dont think counterproductive political opinions like this are a result of mass-stupidity, I think they’re proof that propaganda works, and that under the right set of circumstances, you or I or anyone could be made to fall for them.
An unassailable group seems impossible given that there shitty people out there, who if they join such a group, immediately mean that someone is not necessarily trustworthy because of merely being a part of said group. Even a belief that one’s group is an unassailable paragon seems problematic as if one truly thinks that one’s group is unassailable, then any accusation of wrongdoing by an outsider towards a member will get dismissed, and you could get a situation like some religious groups get with priests or others that they see as inherently good and trustworthy, where when an abusive person inevitably attains that status, allegations against them are dismissed and covered up.
It’s not cyberpunk to my knowledge, but there’s apparently a story out there that makes fun of this type of sci fi description writing, by telling what seems to be a military adventure story about going to fight and conquer some aliens, but is revealed by the very end to actually have been the story of the conquistador that conquered the Inca empire, but with everything described this way such that it sounds like more advanced technology than it is.
I mean, in an actual fight, that one movie notwithstanding, King Kong shouldnt exactly be an equivalent to Godzilla, he managed to get himself killed by being shot up by some aircraft mounted guns and falling off a building, while Godzilla can tank a nuke and fire radioactive plasma from his mouth
Nonconsensual AI porn is hated on the left and right. Can Congress act on it? (www.politico.com)
Mammals (beehaw.org)
32nd Century Uniforms (lemmy.world)
Half of Britons wouldn't take a trip to the the moon, even in guaranteed safety (c.l3n.co)
We're all just characters in someone else's cyberpunk story (corteximplant.com)
cross-posted from: corteximplant.com/users/…/112491302665199252...
If you name a wheeled vehicle you're immediately executed (lemmy.world)
An international institution doing something based for once (sopuli.xyz)