The ethics on the future of AI-generated non-con videos

[brotherted]

It's no secret we're not only in the age of Artificial Intelligence, but also that it's only going to get smarter.

And while non-consensual tickling might seem a lot tamer than other genres of non-consensual activity we can all imagine, I thought it would be nevertheless interesting to hear people's thought on this -- our little sector of the world, involving our favorite hobby.

My take: For generations now, countless mainstream Hollywood movies have depicted murders and rapes, and not very many people make the argument that those films should be banned. But if something were promoted as an actual snuff film, yes, I think it would be banned. But what happens once it becomes impossible to tell what's real and what's not? (Some could cite debates in this forum about certain video clips promoted as non-con and argue we're already there.)

But once A-I content becomes indistinguishable from the real thing -- where no one can even tell if someone were really abducted and mercilessly tickle tortured, or whether a computer created it all as a fantasy -- it'll be meaningless to ban anything. In fact, we'll all probably have the ability to create our own A-I content tailored to our exact interests. Essentially, there will be no way to ban any genre of content, because the actual content creation machines themselves will be everywhere.

 

[Elyos]

In a world where we would be able to create any content of our deepest fantasies by ourselves – the sharing of content would drastically drop in significance and relevance, as there wouldn't be much value in it anymore. It would just serve as a source of inspiration.

We are definitely living in intriguing times by all means. I would quote following from one of the most beloved characters "There will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right".

That quote sums up well the challenges we face with AI – on the ethical level as well as all the other spheres it falls under.

 

[Studious_Hustler]

It's interesting to imagine, but I think we're still a long way off from AI being able to approach the quality of human-made porn -- unless your fetish is the uncanny valley, in which case present-day tech must be your erotic wonderland.

 

[milagros317]

Back in 2004, long before the current AI developments, I posted a story on Tickle Theater. Here it is:
https://www.ticklingforum.com/threads/tickle-toy-of-mary-kate-and-ashley-f-m.364113/

There was a disclaimer before the body of the story. In part, the disclaimer said this:

It is entirely a work of fiction ...

This story contains extreme F/m tickle torture, spanking, and foot worship. If any of that will offend you, then don't read it. All characters in this story are 18 years old or older.

Although it didn't contain the word "non-consensual," the phrase "extreme F/m tickle torture" would imply that.
It was stated to be entirely fictional.
Nevertheless, there were some extreme negative comments:

1)
ugh

i really really dont like stories like this, what is it with you people who think tickling is a ruthless method of torture? i can see someone getting tickle tortured once for like an hour or 2 and i think that that is harsh. Doin that to someone for the rest of their life? thats is like, unthinkable. Tickling is suppose to be for pleasure. Even if its just fun, its a fun pleasurable thing, if you take it sexually, then its suppose to be a pleasurably thing sexually, its not suppose to be for torture, and its not suppose to make someone freakin miserable.

2)
I totally agree with FeatherFeet:I stopped reading it at the half of the story.I was thinking how the hell the readers doesn't throw up?Cause I was close to it...

3)
sorry but that was jus sick, i agree with Johnny and FeatherFeet. im pretty open minded but this was FUKED.

4)
sry admin, ill calm down a bit more, im just very passionite about this subject. I mean, this isnt even just tickling its other forms of torture, this is a tickling site isnt it? not a spanking site.

What does spanking have to do with tickling for one?

second, im just oh my god thats gross. This is too evil....

there should be a section on this site called. "THE EVIL TORTUROUS SECTION." where stuff like this should go if anything, cuz alot of people agree.........stories like this are screwed. Its this kind of story that give ticklers a bad name. People think that our community is sick because they read stories like this and are like "OH MY GOD PEOPLE GET OFF ON THAT??" well i agree with them and say the same thing, even tho i love tickling. Most of our community, likes the PLEASURE of tickling, and people who like to use it as a ruthless torture make us all look like that....

5)
ok, yadda yadda i get the warnings and stuff, but you kno what? a story like this to us, is like a story about rape as nessionite pointed out in a thread of mine. So WHY do you people fantasize about tickling rape? and even if you do, there should be something against posting stuff like it. Its not right.

and if people love it so much, make an extra section for it. Ive seen sections on other sites that have "playful" and then "sadistic" tickling, and if someone can argue that this story wasnt sadistic, you should be a lawyer.

6)
this... was horrible... if not for the basis, for what happened

Orange MARMELADE? The guy'd be DEAD after only 2 weeks! Processed suger is NOT enough to support human life mate. And the torture they put him thru... after only 20 whacks his arse would be raw, after 50 it'd be BLEEDING, and after 200, he'd have PERMANENT scarring. The human rump is NOT that tough because, let's face it, HOW OFTEN does it get truely hurt?

Oh, and by the end of the third day of something like that, he'd be truely insane. After a few days, he wouldn't react anymore at all. After a month, he'd not even feel anything.

I agree with what was said.. this is like... tickle rape

So, I conclude that many people would have an extreme negative reaction to any non-consensual tickling stories created by AI and some of them would try to get such stories banned.

 

[Titillating 2.0]

This is a very interesting concept to discuss and I am intrigued to consider everyone’s different positions on the matter. I would argue that man as is without the need for AI has the potential to and often does create works of fiction with these darker, more extreme thematics incorporated into their work. I myself have seen multiple works with these themes on this very forum and while the creators offer a discretionary warning at the top, I prefer to avoid stories like this nonetheless. Now we have to reflect on the matter that stories and videos are two very different things, but some studios are adept at making stories reality with the right prices being paid. Sadly there are people who will go to many lengths to have certain fantasies carried out, with any fetish or kink applicable. And I think that with AI already being used to create realistic art, it’s only a matter of time before people with less resources to carry out these fantasies with their own hands resort to AI to get the job done. I do agree with some of the other users on here that it will take awhile to truly get to that level, though I think that Internet channels should do a stronger job of flagging certain material regardless of trying to dictate between AI and actuality. Of course if it’s AI then one could argue that no actual crime was committed, though I suppose at that point it’d be up to investigative powers.

 

[SoleMates]

I work in the field(s) of both digital entertainment (models, actors, et cetera) and software engineering, so I have a bit of a unique perspective on this.

Firstly, famous people can - and have - successfully argued in court that they have the rights to their image. Disney/Lucasfilm could not digitally recreate Peter Cushing for Rogue One without the permission of his estate, for example. I have direct experience with this, as one of the video games I worked on did not have the rights to the actor starring in the film we were adapting, so we had to make do. It is also true that Hollywood has been reproducing violent scenarios (with varying levels of convincingness) since film was invented. In all of those cases, the media was produced with the full consent of all involved, including the actors appearing therein.

You have two issues, here. The first is that the video reproduction, whether with AI or hiring a celebrity look-alike (they exist, and have existed, for decades, and even tickling producers like Tickling Paradise has used them), can either be for monetary gain, personal use, or targeted slander/libel attempting to defame them.

First up is monetary gain. As I said, even before AI was invented, it was possible to hire a celebrity look-alike to star in a tickling video and sell it, legally. The invention of AI doesn't change this. In fact, the studio will have records indicating that they did or didn't hire the celebrity in question, and if they don't have these records, then that's an entirely different felony. So even if I were to hypothetically create a perfect deepfake of Alyssa Milano getting tickle-tortured by Joe Biden, there would be records to legally prove that neither celebrity actually appeared in my video. Furthermore, both celebrities could then sue the pants off me depending on how cagey I was about this fact and whether or not I was attempting to mislead my customers and a whole host of other legal nonsense that is way too complicated to get into here.

So, that leaves personal videos or slanderous content. We already have issues of non-consensual material being circulated on social media - actual rapes, assaults, and even murders are shared freely on sites like Twitter or PornHub. This is why a few years ago PornHub deleted 90% of their content and tightened up their consent screening, or have we all forgotten that? Anyway, whether or not material will get "banned" currently depends on how deep the pockets of the complainant are or how much of a stink they make to the right people or even how famous they are. So, odds are my hypothetical Alyssa Milano video might get me in trouble but a video I made of my neighbor, who nobody has ever heard of and doesn't have a pot to piss in, won't; mainly because the odds of her seeing it are basically nil and even then, she'd have to take offense to it and care enough to seek legal action. And even then, she'd have to prove some kind of damages... and if all I did was make a video for my personal spank bank that I didn't even share with anyone, she'd probably be legally entitled to Jack and shit, and Jack never showed up to the hearing. Milagros' fan fiction is both equal parts freedom of expression and copyright violation given that its content involves celebrities who, again, have rights to their image but also simultaneously enjoy less legally-protected privacy freedoms due to being public figures. No, it doesn't make a damn bit of sense. However, again, regardless of whether a case could be made for damages, would he be worth pursuing? Lawyers cost money, so the answer is no. Companies in general have to walk a fine tightrope between enforcing enough of their intellectual property rights that they don't lose them and wasting money chasing down some kid in the Philippines who drew Mickey Mouse on his wall.

So, in short... the legal matters of digital representation are already an issue that have been swirling in the courts for years (I mean, before AI we had Photoshop), and unfortunately the wrinkle that AI provides is going to have to cause them to be amended or re-visited. In the meantime, companies like Valve initially outright banned the use of AI-generated content in games uploaded to their Steam platform, but have more recently relaxed them as long as the developer can prove that the AI model trained on the content did not violate any intellectual property rights. So yes, it looks like laws regarding AI content is going to get swept up into the greater issue of copyright law, which is a complex and obnoxious beast that still gives people with degrees and years of experience in such things nightmares.

I'll say what I've always said on the topic; think long and hard whether or not you want to be the guy who gets made an example of because a lawyer feels like they haven't done enough to earn their paycheck this month. That said, AI is just a different wrinkle on an existing problem, which (mostly) has already been solved. For example, there has been some push, if memory serves, for voice actors to earn royalties or license their voices for use in AI training or reproduction software. On the other hand, hiring cheap sound-alikes is also a thing, so... yeah. Lawyers.