if you think drug euphorias are high.

Just wait until you find out what the lows are like.

No, it really isn’t.

i would consider it such, you said as much in your original post that the entire crux of the issue is the semantics between a real photograph, as physically taken by the camera, and what could be considered an image, whatever that constitutes, for purposes of semantical arguments here, let's say digitally drawn art, clip art, whatever doesn't matter. It's objectively not a photo, and that's what matters here.

The pupose of that paradox is that you unambiguously are recreating/replacing the ship exactly as you already know it is. The reason the ‘ai’ in question here is even being used is that it isn’t doing that. It’s giving you back much more than it was given.

Yeah so the reason why the thought experiment does this is because it creates an incredibly sterile environment which allows us to easily study and research the question at hand. In this case it's to boil it down to something as physically close to "objective relation" and "symbolic relation" I.E. the two extremes of the thought experiment at hand. It's still not easy to define what the true answer to the question is, and that's why it's incredibly sterile.

The comparison would be if Thesues’ ship had been lost and you definitely don’t have the ship anymore, but had managed to recover the sail. If you take the sail to an experienced builder (the ai) who had never seen the ship, then he might be able to build a reasonable approximation based on inferences from the sail and his wealth of knowledge, but nobody is going to be daft enough to assert it is same ship. Does the wheel even have the same number of spokes? Does it have the same number of oars? The same weight of anchor?

this is not what i was making my statement about. If you read my original comment you might pickup on this one.

Disagree.

yes ok, and this is what my thought experiment comparison was about in this case. The specific thing i was asking you was how we define a photo, and how we define an image, because what would normally be constituted as a photo, could arguably be considered to be an image on account of the various levels of image manipulation taking place.

While rather nitpicky in essence i suppose, the point i'm making here was that your entire statement might be upended entirely based on the fact that the original photo used, may not even be a photo at all, making the entire distinction entirely redundant to begin with. Since you never defined what counts as a "photo" and what counts as an "image" there is no clear distinction between that, other than the assumed AI image manipulation that you talked about. Which like i said, most phones do.

In short, i don't think it's a very good way of conceptualizing the fundamental problem here because it's rather loose in it's requirements. If you wanted to argue that the resulting imagery simply is not akin to actual real imagery (in a literal sense), i see no reason to disagree. However, unfortunately the general populous does not care about the semantic definition of whether or not an image is a photo or not. So as far as most people are concerned, it's either "deep faked" or "real" There is no alternative.

Legally, since we'd be talking about revenge porn and CP here, i don't see a reason to differentiate between the semantics, because as far as the law is concerned, and as far as most of the general public is concerned. Someone deep faking revenge porn is arguably, still just revenge porn. While AI generated CP may not be real CP, marrying a 12 year old is legal in some places, it'd still be fucking weird if you did it. If you are creating AI CP, that's pretty fucking weird, and there isn't exactly a good argument for doing that. (ignoring the one obvious counter example)

oh shit, you're right, this is a conspiracy!

No one is picking your locks just to move things around or steal small, insignificant items. You are either suffering from a mental disorder or a trusted member of the household is gaslighting you (it’s not gaslighting though, you’re grasp of reality is slipping. Don’t call me for a pick proof lock, just get help please)

or it's probably monoxide poisoning.

the oh so well kept secret of the software and services (surrounding it) industry that people seem to think is worth paying money for.

Yet time after time these paid software companies produce the most vile awful, dysfunctional, and garbage software (and services) that have ever been created. While somehow a group of people who aren't being paid, and aren't doing this for any sort of reason other than "why not" manage to create the most functional software ever, while also managing to somehow catch the single biggest potential software vulnerability in this decade (other than wannacry) purely because ssh has slightly sus behaviors when running the infected payload.

Please stop doing web dev, it isn't real.

yeah idk why they said that, it's objectively wrong.

Deepfakes do not contain any recorded information about the subject unless that subject is also in the training set.

this is explicitly, untrue, they literally do. You are just factually wrong about this. While it may not be in the training data, how do you think it manages to replace the face of someone in one picture, with the face of someone else in some other video.

Do you think it just magically guesses? No, it literally uses a real picture of someone. In fact, back in the day with ganimation and early deepfake software, you literally had to train these AIs on pictures of the person you wanted it to do a faceswap on. Remember all those singing deepfakes that were super popular back a couple of years ago? Yep, those literally trained on real pictures.

Regardless, you are still ignoring my point. My question here was how do we consider AI content to be "not photo" but consider photos manipulated numerous times, through numerous different processes, which are quite literally, not the original photo, and a literal "photo" to rephrase it simpler for you, and other readers. "why is ai generated content not considered to be a photo, when a heavily altered photo of something that vaugely resembles it's original photo in most aspects, is considered to be a photo"

You seem to have missed the entire point of my question entirely. And simply said something wrong instead.

Yes it is semantics

no, it's not, this is a ship of thesseus premise here. The semantics results in how we contextualize and conceptualize things into word form. The problem is not semantics (they are just used to convey the problem at hand), the problem is a philosophical conundrum that has existed for thousands of years.

in fact, if we're going by semantics here, technically photograph is rather broad as it literally just defines itself as "something in likeness of" though it defines it as taken by method of photography. We could arguably remove that part of it, and simply use it to refer to something that is a likeness of something else. And we see this is contextual usage of words, a "photographic" copy is often used to describe something that is similar enough to something else, that in terms of a photograph, they appear to be the same thing.

Think about scanning a paper document, that would be a photographic copy of some physical item. While it is literally taken via means of photography. In a contextual and semantic sense, it just refers to the fact that the digital copy is photographically equivalent to the physical copy.

oh shit, my bad.

yeah but we're also talking about something that quite literally never happened, it was all manufactured, and while i don't want to downplay the effects of that.

This is probably the best time ever to start being an e slut because you can just say it was deep faked and people don't exactly have a reason to disagree with you.

Also while trauma is permanent, i would also like to remind you that every life experience you have throughout your life is also permanent, it cannot be changed, it cannot be undone, it cannot be revoked. You simply have to live with it. The only thing that changes your experiences and memories around it, is how you handle it internally.

I would probably be more compassionate with you if we were literally talking about revenge porn, or whatever the correct stipulation would be here, i'm not sure, i don't exactly fuck people on the regular so i'm not really qualified here lmao.

But like i said, this is just AI generated. Everyone knows about AI now, how many people do you think are going to hear that and go "yeah that makes sense" probably most of them. Highschoolers might be a bit more unreasonable, but nothing changes the fact that they simply aren't real. You just have to do your best to dissociate yourself from that alternate reality where they are, because they quite literally, are not.

some people would consider it to be traumatic, others wouldn't. I wouldn't give a shit either way, i might even further the rumors because i think it would be funny. It's all a matter of perspective.

Not when you ruin someone else’s life.

we are literally talking about an image that was made out of thin air, the description of "ruining someones life" is fucking absurd considering the very real alternative in this case.

I don't think maturity is an explicit thing in a binary form, i would be ok with the presumption that the age of 18 provides a general expected range of maturity between individuals, it's when you start to develop your world view and really pick up on the smaller things in life and how they work together to make a functional system.

I think the idea of putting a "line" on it, is wrong, i think it's better to describe it "this is generally what you expect from this subset"

People that want everyone to be OK with nudity and in most cases diddling kiddo’s. Same arguments, almost verbatim, have been used in the map-sphere.

you say this like they're saying that children have to be naked in order to be outside legally. The point they were making is that the primary reason half of what you said was a significant concern is due explicitly to our current social climate and it's values. While not fully relevant, they still made a point, and considering how bad your argumentative rhetoric is, i'd say it's a fair shot at something you said, considering you didn't have much else to say other than accusing someone of being a pedophile i guess.