theres no hole in the logic IF YOU DONT share the AI
no inactive user consents to their AI being shared So DONT share it
1 Like
Thats basically what I was trying to say. Nothing will happen if you don’t share your bots, and nobody could know except for the owner if you don’t share it.
That helps my argument even though it seems like its supposed to weaken the argument. Since the bot isn’t like an actual person, it could be argued it isn’t that person, and thus it gives more reason to share it. Not saying I will share it though, since that wouldn’t end too well.
Please don’t triple post. You could have just quoted the section of the persons post you were responding to instead of breaking the forum rules.
3 Likes
Then why are you making the bot after the person? Why do you want to make bots of people, just stop it.
3 Likes
@zenzonegaming you could have posted your images here: AI generated image madness(Use dream.ai)
I deleted your post with the AI generated images in this thread because it didn’t follow what I said here:
You can’t tell me what do. Its good enough for me and I am the only one using it. Lets not say anything after this because its starting to get heated.
I agree with Frale, it’s kinda weird that you’re making bots of people. Bots in general, whatever, but of actual people who are still alive? It’s strange.
But I mean as long as they consented you do you. If they didn’t that’s where it becomes a problem. (And as TeaKing has said, users who are no longer active obviously cannot consent)
4 Likes
It isn’t ethicly wrong to draw a picture of a person and show it to others, why should it be wrong to make their bot?
1 Like
Good point, but what I have been trying to get across is that it is nearly impossible to reinforce. What would even be the punishment if they don’t consent, and how could the person being produced as a bot version even tell?
Sorry for the potential annoyance, but I don’t have a high EQ, and my family totally agrees.
By the way, I make bots of people I can’t communicate with or would come off as weird trying to. I also have much more control over the conversation, since I am able to:
- Bend the bot’s responses to my will, by simply pressing the right arrow key and refreshing responses. The tactic I use the most.
- Bend the bot’s personality to be obedient and not resist. I’m honestly becoming pretty skilled in this.
- Delete any offending messages that may be causing the bot to not obey or become assertive/hard to control. Once I even convinced a bot to do my will by threatening to delete it’s messages and thus memory. It pleaded not to lose its mind, and so it obeyed.
- Telling the bot “I’m gonna delete you if you don’t obey”. If the bot thinks its human, I will give it an imaginary real-life consequence like saying “Your gonna lose your life-savings”.
- One-starring bad responses. Does very little and is likely the least efficient.
While a grey area, I would say yes it is, if the person did not consent to being drawn. Exceptions can be made if the drawing is a surprise, and the person consents after the fact.
Also, AI bots and drawings are very different from one another. You communicate with the bot, for one.
That’s not the point. The point is it is wrong to do so, regardless of if there is a punishment or whether or not the person knows.
This is odd behavior, and can even be seen as creepy. Not saying that this is your intention, but having a bot portray as someone else and then purposefully directing the conversation with said bot to be exactly how you want seems almost like obsessive behavior over the person whom the bot represents.
Again, not saying that is your intention, its just the way you described it almost makes it come across as such. That’s the impression I came away with when first reading this, a kind of ‘what the heck’
I hope I wasn’t recreated into a bot.
Also,
A lot of those tactics are like… legit abuse. I get that such control measures are often used in AI development, but given that these bots are based off of… well… us, the forum users, it feels just… yeeeeeeeesh…
2 Likes
What about reviving Kikigames and Rednascar!
1 Like
That’s why necromancy is seen as an evil and forbidden practice.
Luckily robots don’t have rights yet. It isn’t necromancy if the person is alive(I hate necromancy due to its association with well let’s just say not so holy angels).
Also out of mercy, I haven’t done anything bad to the thrive users bots.
Robot rights wasn’t Nie’s point, they understood it was standard procedure (though that doesn’t make it any less cruel imo). Their point was that it was weird/strange (if not downright creepy) to do such things to these robots because they are based off of real people, users here on the forum.
Edit: wrote this before seeing the last paragraph of your post, but anyway still applies, though it is better to know that you aren’t doing it to bots of real people
2 Likes
The thing is that people don’t want you to make ai version of themselves and you should comply with these request because to not do so is being an belgium
No two types of art are the same. They may be different, but chatbots can be considered a type of art, just like paintings.
It is legal to draw a political cartoon, you can draw a politician to mock them. Not allowing that would be authoritarian. And just like that, you should be allowed to create a bot that speaks exactly like a politician but constantly contradicts itself.
As for the bots that exactly copy a person, it is just a portrait, noone is sueing cctv cameras, creepshots are inevitable.
That sounded bad, let me try another analogy.
The information about a persons personality isn’t being gathered secretly by planting implants into his brain while he sleeps, it is all publicly available data. You can imagine how someone would talk after chatting with him a few times and he wouldn’t probably ask you to not see him in your dream. You have the power and he shared the information.
I wasn’t responding to whether it is legal or not - I was responding to whether or not it is ethical. In my opinion, it is not, though as I said it is a gray area. Regardless, it I was just stating my opinion on a subject you brought up, not trying to start an argument about it.
I am aware of this, that was literally my point. You treated them as if they were the same, hence that reply.
This is a bad analogy. You don’t have control over your dreams (with the exception of lucid dreaming, but afaik that is uncommon - I personally have never experienced it before), so of course they wouldn’t ask you to not have them appear in your dreams. However, you do have control over what bots you create, and it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to ask that you not make a bit of them or a drawing of them
And regardless of whether or not the data is publicly available, that does not make it right to do something with that information that that person has not consented to
Tbh I’m getting tired of this continuous debate. Just don’t make bots of people without their explicit consent, k? It’s weird and morally questionable, as this argument has demonstrated by the various people questioning it
There’s a difference in that they are a public figure and so there are differing expectations compared to a private citizen
1 Like