Robyn Adele Anderson

[Tinkerbell’s Bf]

Would anyone here good with AI or photo shop be able to give me some edits of Robyn Adele Anderson?

[DocRick]

Would anyone here good with AI or photo shop be able to give me some edits of Robyn Adele Anderson naked and shrunk? Front and behind?

In the U.S. at least, it's a felony to create a nude image of an actual person such as putting her head on a nude body and posting it on the Internet.

[Little Sally]

Would anyone here good with AI or photo shop be able to give me some edits of Robyn Adele Anderson naked and shrunk? Front and behind?

In the U.S. at least, it's a felony to create a nude image of an actual person such as putting her head on a nude body and posting it on the Internet.

This sort of thing has become widespread on social media platforms, and is a cause of great harm (even to the extent of causing suicides in some cases). So it's rightfully become a criminal offence.

And using AI for faking celebrity images like we've seen on here, should be done with respect.

[Tinkerbell’s Bf]

Noted

[ShrinkMaster]

What's going on here?
1. No one asked for a nude photo!
2. There are tons of fake SW images of celebrities here on the forum, just like on DeviantArt and various other platforms.
So what's with this warning crap all of a sudden?!

[Trunkmonkey]

I have a question.
If a person is generated from a random prompt like say, 'generate a random 20 year old redheaded woman' and the prompt produces an image of someone who is known, is the resulting image that actual person's image or, is it still the random prompt Doppelgänger/facsimile? Bearing in mind that no actual named person living or dead is mentioned in the prompt and there is no intent to produce an image of a known person from the prompt or the prompter. Just wondering. Toodles!

[Little Sally]

What's going on here?
1. No one asked for a nude photo!
2. There are tons of fake SW images of celebrities here on the forum, just like on DeviantArt and various other platforms.
So what's with this warning crap all of a sudden?!

The original request did ask for naked images (it has been edited twice)

See the second post in the thread, which quotes that original request.

[Trunkmonkey]

What's going on here?
1. No one asked for a nude photo!
2. There are tons of fake SW images of celebrities here on the forum, just like on DeviantArt and various other platforms.
So what's with this warning crap all of a sudden?!

The original request did ask for naked images (it has been edited twice)

See the second post in the thread, which quotes that original request.

Sure and I wouldn't condone any of that, bad form and all but, the image of the person that would be rendered by the descriptiom of how I described how it was made would be totally imaginary so, that would mean that the image of the rendered person was never a real person because they never really existed or, would it be classed as an image of a real person because the render of the imaginary person simply looks like someone who is real?. So, I still have the same question.

[Little Sally]

What's going on here?
1. No one asked for a nude photo!
2. There are tons of fake SW images of celebrities here on the forum, just like on DeviantArt and various other platforms.
So what's with this warning crap all of a sudden?!

The original request did ask for naked images (it has been edited twice)

See the second post in the thread, which quotes that original request.

Sure and I wouldn't condone any of that, bad form and all but, the image of the person that would be rendered by the descriptiom of how I described how it was made would be totally imaginary so, that would mean that the image of the rendered person was never a real person because they never really existed or, would it be classed as an image of a real person because the render of the imaginary person simply looks like someone who is real?. So, I still have the same question.

I guess if you request (ie, prompt) AI to produce an image of something you're imagining, it's never going to be an image of an actual real person. So if the AI produces something that resembles a celebrity for example, I suppose it's down to that program and nothing you could be held accountable for. Or is it? It's a bit of a grey area to me.

Of course we know how AI has been widely used/abused to fake images on social media platforms etc, but that's a deliberate act one would assume. Same on this place and other sites, where celebrity AI lookalikes are placed in situations which are disrespectful and often lewd. But that's done with deliberate intent, and isn't what you're concerned about if I'm understanding you correctly.

[Trunkmonkey]

I don't know. I mean could it come down to actual intent? No one can be held accountable for something that they had no idea was going to happen and had no intention of happening, and even then the rendered image still wouldn't be the percieved (by others) real person because that was never in the prompters mind to begin with. And just to be clear. If anyone deliberately posted images of any of my daughters who are real people and the poster knew that they were real people, on any platform of that description you gave, I would find them and explain to them using a subtle blend of psychology, a sharp and splintered stick, a certain hole and extreme and gratuitous violence that they shouldn't really do that, and hope that they understood as much and wouldn't do it ever again. You know, just to let them know how it feels.

[Little Sally]

I don't know. I mean could it come down to actual intent? No one can be held accountable for something that they had no idea was going to happen and had no intention of happening, and even then the rendered image still wouldn't be the percieved (by others) real person because that was never in the prompters mind to begin with.

Yes, I think it is about intent, and deciding what the intention was for making the AI image. And whether the image could be interpreted as something likely to cause offence or not. Because much of what we see (on Facebook for example) is just intended to be humorous, or some kind of mickey take. I guess it's what the user does with the image they've requested at the end of the day. Are you planning to have a go with AI (or maybe have done)?

And just to be clear. If anyone deliberately posted images of any of my daughters who are real people and the poster knew that they were real people, on any platform of that description you gave, I would find them and explain to them using a subtle blend of psychology, a sharp and splintered stick, a certain hole and extreme and gratuitous violence that they shouldn't really do that, and hope that they understood as much and wouldn't do it ever again. You know, just to let them know how it feels.

Well said. I certainly empathise with that view.

[Trunkmonkey]

Thank you for the discussion. I'm also very protective of my daughters.
You asked,, 'Are you planning to have a go with AI (or maybe have done)?' https://www.shrunken-women-board.com/ph ... 29&t=13842 That's my thread if you want to have a look. It seems to be quite popular.

[Little Sally]

Thank you for the discussion. I'm also very protective of my daughters.
You asked,, 'Are you planning to have a go with AI (or maybe have done)?' https://www.shrunken-women-board.com/ph ... 29&t=13842 That's my thread if you want to have a look. It seems to be quite popular.

Just had a quick look at the newer posts (I have to go out soon).

Your Ai Val and Betty pics are really nice! Well done.

It's always good to revisit LOTG, and I never tire of seeing it. Whichever way it's created.

[ShrinkMaster]

The original request did ask for naked images (it has been edited twice)

See the second post in the thread, which quotes that original request.

Sure and I wouldn't condone any of that, bad form and all but, the image of the person that would be rendered by the descriptiom of how I described how it was made would be totally imaginary so, that would mean that the image of the rendered person was never a real person because they never really existed or, would it be classed as an image of a real person because the render of the imaginary person simply looks like someone who is real?. So, I still have the same question.

I guess if you request (ie, prompt) AI to produce an image of something you're imagining, it's never going to be an image of an actual real person. So if the AI produces something that resembles a celebrity for example, I suppose it's down to that program and nothing you could be held accountable for. Or is it? It's a bit of a grey area to me.

Of course we know how AI has been widely used/abused to fake images on social media platforms etc, but that's a deliberate act one would assume. Same on this place and other sites, where celebrity AI lookalikes are placed in situations which are disrespectful and often lewd. But that's done with deliberate intent, and isn't what you're concerned about if I'm understanding you correctly.

I didn't realize that your quote differed from the original post.

If I take Trunkmonkey's question a step further, given a current population of 8.2 billion people, the probability that an AI won't create a living doppelgänger is extremely, extremely low.

[Little Sally]

I didn't realize that your quote differed from the original post.

Yes it gets confusing when that happens.

DocRick clearly anwered the original post on the thread (quoting it), before the poster edited the 'naked' part out of it.

If I take Trunkmonkey's question a step further, given a current population of 8.2 billion people, the probability that an AI won't create a living doppelgänger is extremely, extremely low.

Yes I guess you're right. Even if you're very specific in what you want the subject to look like (in a prompt), I suppose the chances of the AI having it's own ideas of what you want is quite common. I've only dabbled with it for creating backgrounds for collaging, but even then there's a lot of trial and error, and quite a bit of frustration lol!

[Trunkmonkey]

Just had a quick look at the newer posts (I have to go out soon).

Your Ai Val and Betty pics are really nice! Well done.

It's always good to revisit LOTG, and I never tire of seeing it. Whichever way it's created.

Thank you, that's very kind of you. The thread has more LOTG content throughout mostly and you might find somemore renders you like there. Anyhoo, thank you for you kind words again, but for now.... Toodles!

[Trunkmonkey]

Sure and I wouldn't condone any of that, bad form and all but, the image of the person that would be rendered by the descriptiom of how I described how it was made would be totally imaginary so, that would mean that the image of the rendered person was never a real person because they never really existed or, would it be classed as an image of a real person because the render of the imaginary person simply looks like someone who is real?. So, I still have the same question.

I guess if you request (ie, prompt) AI to produce an image of something you're imagining, it's never going to be an image of an actual real person. So if the AI produces something that resembles a celebrity for example, I suppose it's down to that program and nothing you could be held accountable for. Or is it? It's a bit of a grey area to me.

Of course we know how AI has been widely used/abused to fake images on social media platforms etc, but that's a deliberate act one would assume. Same on this place and other sites, where celebrity AI lookalikes are placed in situations which are disrespectful and often lewd. But that's done with deliberate intent, and isn't what you're concerned about if I'm understanding you correctly.

I didn't realize that your quote differed from the original post.

If I take Trunkmonkey's question a step further, given a current population of 8.2 billion people, the probability that an AI won't create a living doppelgänger is extremely, extremely low.

Maybe true but, it surely still comes down to actual intent?

[ShrinkMaster]

I guess if you request (ie, prompt) AI to produce an image of something you're imagining, it's never going to be an image of an actual real person. So if the AI produces something that resembles a celebrity for example, I suppose it's down to that program and nothing you could be held accountable for. Or is it? It's a bit of a grey area to me.

Of course we know how AI has been widely used/abused to fake images on social media platforms etc, but that's a deliberate act one would assume. Same on this place and other sites, where celebrity AI lookalikes are placed in situations which are disrespectful and often lewd. But that's done with deliberate intent, and isn't what you're concerned about if I'm understanding you correctly.

I didn't realize that your quote differed from the original post.

If I take Trunkmonkey's question a step further, given a current population of 8.2 billion people, the probability that an AI won't create a living doppelgänger is extremely, extremely low.

Maybe true but, it surely still comes down to actual intent?

It's impossible to prove the actual intent without the prompt that was entered. Since all you see is the result (the finished image or video), anyone can read anything—or nothing at all—into it. So I wouldn't worry about such trivial stuff.

[Little Sally]

Thank you, that's very kind of you. The thread has more LOTG content throughout mostly and you might find some more renders you like there. Anyhoo, thank you for you kind words again, but for now.... Toodles!

You're welcome, and I'll investigate your work further when time permits.

[Trunkmonkey]

I didn't realize that your quote differed from the original post.

If I take Trunkmonkey's question a step further, given a current population of 8.2 billion people, the probability that an AI won't create a living doppelgänger is extremely, extremely low.

Maybe true but, it surely still comes down to actual intent?

It's impossible to prove the actual intent without the prompt that was entered. Since all you see is the result (the finished image or video), anyone can read anything—or nothing at all—into it. So I wouldn't worry about such trivial stuff.

Trivial? I don't know about that. Say for example a random render produced an image that looked exactly like someone and that someone didn't like it and decided to point an accusatory finger at you, insisting that you produced it like that on purpose, yet what they are saying isn't trrue because there was no actual intent on your part but they're still going to sue you? By what you're saying, how would you prove that there was no intent on your part, because the resulting render is real yet not what the accuser percives it to be? And then there's the distress it must have caused the person who it isn't an image of but they think it is. That's not trivial.

[DocRick]

I have a question.
If a person is generated from a random prompt like say, 'generate a random 20 year old redheaded woman' and the prompt produces an image of someone who is known, is the resulting image that actual person's image or, is it still the random prompt Doppelgänger/facsimile? Bearing in mind that no actual named person living or dead is mentioned in the prompt and there is no intent to produce an image of a known person from the prompt or the prompter. Just wondering. Toodles!

I've used AI or another form of "unblurrer" on an image of a nude adult woman being fondled by giant hands and the AI changed the image and "unblurred" image looked like a minor........if I posted it, I could have been prosecuted for child porn, so I destroyed it. I could prove the AI "created" the child porn, but why would I want to go through the hassle?

[ShrinkMaster]

Maybe true but, it surely still comes down to actual intent?

It's impossible to prove the actual intent without the prompt that was entered. Since all you see is the result (the finished image or video), anyone can read anything—or nothing at all—into it. So I wouldn't worry about such trivial stuff.

Trivial? I don't know about that. Say for example a random render produced an image that looked exactly like someone and that someone didn't like it and decided to point an accusatory finger at you, insisting that you produced it like that on purpose, yet what they are saying isn't trrue because there was no actual intent on your part but they're still going to sue you? By what you're saying, how would you prove that there was no intent on your part, because the resulting render is real yet not what the accuser percives it to be? And then there's the distress it must have caused the person who it isn't an image of but they think it is. That's not trivial.

Here we go again with this whole 8.2 billion people thing. If that really worries you, you shouldn’t use AI to generate images anymore. Because there’s definitely someone on this planet who looks similar to—or even exactly like—that AI-generated person.
Since there’s simply no way to prevent something like that, I personally couldn’t care less.

[Trunkmonkey]

It's impossible to prove the actual intent without the prompt that was entered. Since all you see is the result (the finished image or video), anyone can read anything—or nothing at all—into it. So I wouldn't worry about such trivial stuff.

Trivial? I don't know about that. Say for example a random render produced an image that looked exactly like someone and that someone didn't like it and decided to point an accusatory finger at you, insisting that you produced it like that on purpose, yet what they are saying isn't trrue because there was no actual intent on your part but they're still going to sue you? By what you're saying, how would you prove that there was no intent on your part, because the resulting render is real yet not what the accuser percives it to be? And then there's the distress it must have caused the person who it isn't an image of but they think it is. That's not trivial.

Here we go again with this whole 8.2 billion people thing. If that really worries you, you shouldn’t use AI to generate images anymore. Because there’s definitely someone on this planet who looks similar to—or even exactly like—that AI-generated person.
Since there’s simply no way to prevent something like that, I personally couldn’t care less.

So why even reply if you couldn't care less? And your maths doesn't work because, the amount of faces that the AI could randomly render is infinite. Plus in all of history how many people (which is a fair amount) have looked exactly like someone else? All of history that is, which would be far more than the figure that you're quoting. Also it doesn't worry me at all, it was just a question. So please don't presume that you know me because, quite clearly, you don't.

And just so you know..

“What are the odds that an AI image generator, with no reference image or identifying information, would independently generate a face that is an exact likeness of a particular real person?” then the probability is extraordinarily small.

There are two important distinctions:

Recognizably similar: Possible by chance, especially if the person has fairly common facial features. AI models generate faces from learned distributions, so different people can sometimes look surprisingly alike.

Exact likeness: Essentially negligible as a random event. A person's identity is determined by a huge combination of details—facial proportions, eye spacing, nose shape, jaw structure, skin features, asymmetries, etc. Matching all of those independently would be extraordinarily unlikely.

There isn't a meaningful universal percentage such as “1 in X billion,” because AI image generators don't sample faces uniformly at random, and “exact likeness” doesn't have a precise mathematical definition." So there you have it.

[ShrinkMaster]

Trivial? I don't know about that. Say for example a random render produced an image that looked exactly like someone and that someone didn't like it and decided to point an accusatory finger at you, insisting that you produced it like that on purpose, yet what they are saying isn't trrue because there was no actual intent on your part but they're still going to sue you? By what you're saying, how would you prove that there was no intent on your part, because the resulting render is real yet not what the accuser percives it to be? And then there's the distress it must have caused the person who it isn't an image of but they think it is. That's not trivial.

Here we go again with this whole 8.2 billion people thing. If that really worries you, you shouldn’t use AI to generate images anymore. Because there’s definitely someone on this planet who looks similar to—or even exactly like—that AI-generated person.
Since there’s simply no way to prevent something like that, I personally couldn’t care less.

So why even reply if you couldn't care less? And your maths doesn't work because, the amount of faces that the AI could randmly render is infinite. Plus in all of history how many people (which is a fair amount) have looked exactly like someone else? All of history that is, which would be far more than the figure that you're quoting. Also it doesn't worry me at all, it was just a question. So please don't presume that you know me because, quite clearly, you don't.

I just don't take this doppelganger thing that seriously. That's why I didn't mean it as serious advice—I didn't really mean it seriously. I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way.

[Trunkmonkey]

Here we go again with this whole 8.2 billion people thing. If that really worries you, you shouldn’t use AI to generate images anymore. Because there’s definitely someone on this planet who looks similar to—or even exactly like—that AI-generated person.
Since there’s simply no way to prevent something like that, I personally couldn’t care less.

So why even reply if you couldn't care less? And your maths doesn't work because, the amount of faces that the AI could randomly render is infinite. Plus in all of history how many people (which is a fair amount) have looked exactly like someone else? All of history that is, which would be far more than the figure that you're quoting. Also it doesn't worry me at all, it was just a question. So please don't presume that you know me because, quite clearly, you don't.

I just don't take this doppelganger thing that seriously. That's why I didn't mean it as serious advice—I didn't really mean it seriously. I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way.

No need to apologise, I didn't take anything the wrong way I just told you the facts. Talking of which, have you not heard of Identical twins? I would say that they're pretty doppelganger if they look exactly alike and are of the same gender and DNA structure, wouldn't you?