Raw LLM Responses

It would be the AI company's fault that they produced that content without any way to combat its misuse. Misuse includes abusing victims or blackmailing them like what Charlie describes. Other than that, I don't think a sick porn addict is responsible for the damage another person might cause due to misuse. If the AI'd person is not affected at all and not involved in any way that goes against their rights, then creating AI porn is not unethical. Using dopple-gangers and photoshop is as old as time. The people who create/use them to financially or mentally ruin someone were the only ones punished. If you draw a streamer on a canvas at your own home from a public stream VOD (not even in a sexual way) and share it on your art page or with friends/family, you should not require consent from the streamer. The artist used his own property and used publicly available property (not copy-righted) within his own right to create something. The streamer has no right to the art unless the artist starts to directly affect them in ways outside the artist's own rights - like blackmailing or scamming/lying. Even if they used it to scam people other than the streamer, the streamer is not the one who was violated in this case and they were not affected. They are not a victim and can't claim to be a victim unless their reputation was damaged in some meaningful way by being used in scamming OTHER people. The victim(s) is/are the scammed person/people (possibly only) in this case. If we start going after people who draw other people using their own rightfully owned property or public property (like an AI engine or a reference image or a paintbrush) for not asking for consent first, then we are robbing the artists of their rights and liberties. No matter how weird it may seem to us or disturbing it is, as long as the person who did it did not use it for a crime like blackmailing or to damage someone through reputation etc. (since these are actual crimes that go against the rights of others) and as long as it was created solely within that artist's rights, then they are not in any way to blame. There is no merit in the use of the "consent" excuse. You do not own the AI engine and they do not need my consent for them to create something from public property or property they own. I don't need Charlie's consent to edit a video of his face on a realistic surfer's body surfing on a wave if I want to. I do not need his consent to use his face/body or an edited photo of him in a video that I was goofing on him in. I only need to maintain authenticity in front of the law as in not making up damaging lies about him etc. If the AI company did the most to prevent the misuse of the content, then they should also now become not liable for the damage OTHERS cause by using it. OTHERS would be the ones to blame/prosecute. The same exact thing goes with any social media platform like YouTube, Instagram, etc. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows platforms to not be liable for a beheading video that someone posts on them without their knowledge as long as they have done a reasonable effort to moderate it. It allows the modern internet to exist. If they were held liable for every crime people do with their platform they would not be able to operate or exist. This was an issue that was tackled by Section 230. We only faced it when new technology advanced. It is time to treat AI the same way. Atrioc did the right thing in apologising and taking it back. He took the right path in healing himself and the relationships he ruined with his colleagues. He is responsible for anything he did that damaged his own social life. His perverted behaviour is something that warrants any action that Maya & Pokimane and others will take against him. A few reality checks: QT and Atrioc should not work to take down any sites with porn of "them" unless it was obtained illegally (stolen or hacked) or obtained from them in physical reality (THE REAL WORLD NOT fucking METAVERSE reality) without their consent. You should not take Maya or Poki or QT's sides when it comes to them claiming this thing because it was not their consent. It is like you saying someone needs your consent to get close to you with a naked avatar in a VR chat game and crying and breaking down about it. It's like how people were getting offended when they were teabagged in a fucking game. AI porn does not physically strip a person and fornicate with them. AI did not assault them, harass them, or violate their rights in any way by the mere act of creating a fake clip of them. There was no need for consent in any way, shape, or form. No real sexual interaction took place. Feeling weird watching it does not constitute a violation of your rights. Things that simply make you feel weird are, in general, not a violation of your rights. You cannot sue someone or claim moral high-ground over them because they made you feel weird. Weird people exist everywhere for everyone. You don't control them unless they violate any of your rights. This is not a women-only issue and it has nothing to do with women. The fact that women are the major target does no effect to the severity of the issue. You don't feel worse about events because you are a woman. Men can easily put themselves in the victim's shoes (the victim being a man or woman) as good as women would. You don't have more empathy than a man just because you are a woman when it comes to this specific issue. Maya is so stupid for saying what she said. Many parties involved in this story were overreacting in an astounding way. Especially people who called themselves victims. Even though nothing about Atrioc's behaviour was "fair", this should and will have to be classified as "fair use" under either art, parody, or criticism with the caveat that the platform must regulate the use as much as possible and find a practical way to prevent blackmailing - like using digital signatures/watermarks - which should be enforced by law as combat against misuse of any AI content.