The explicit AI-created images of Taylor Swift flooding the internet highlight a major problem with generative AI
Open link in next tab
https://www.fastcompany.com/91016953/deepfake-taylor-swift-ai-dangers
https://www.fastcompany.com/91016953/deepfake-taylor-swift-ai-dangers
People have been creating and posting realistic looking fake celebrity nudes for quite literally decades now, but now they're using AI and its suddenly a problem?
I'm not sure if you noticed, but people who write for a living have suddenly started writing quite a lot about how technology that can write and generate media are bad.
Which is so silly, because AI writing still needs a human editor. I write for a living and there tons of work that involves using AI as a tool to increase productivity rather than to replace writers completely... like photoshop didnt put photographers out of business it just changed the work flow.
I work in a clinical setting where some Doctors are trying an AI program for generating their clinical notes out of the casual conversation between them and the patient. It's way off its mark for what we demand in quality. It requires significant editing from the healthcare provider, and if the note is very robust it quickly becomes more of a chore than modern voice transcription. Our review is not great so far.
That's a terrible way to be using a LLM for generating clinical notes.
Sounds more like trying to use a screwdriver to hammer in screws than an issue with the screwdriver itself.
Sounds more like trying to use a screwdriver to hammer in screws
This is what I think about AI being forced into many things these days. Feels more like an attempt to justify subscription plans than anything actually productive.
In part this is because the SotA model is by far GPT-4, but OpenAI has pigeon holed it into 'chatbot.'
The earliest versions of it pre-release when it was being incorporated into Bing were amazing. Probably the most impressive thing I've seen in tech.
But it was too human-like and freaking users out, so rather than wait for the market to adjust they did extensive fine tuning to make the large language model trained to predict human ouput be less likely to produce human-like output.
The problem is that they don't have a scalpel for this sort of thing and ended up with a model that's very good as a chatbot within a certain scope, but significantly impaired at some of the outside the box mechanics visible early on.
And because it's the SotA, everyone is now using it to fine tune their own models.
So the entire industry is being set back in practical applications outside of "kind of boring chatbot."
Right. It seemed like a reach when I first heard of it, but that's how it's advertised and the Hospital was sold on at least trying it out.
It's because a person can crank out a deep fake in 3 hours, and a crappy one in one. It never cropped up because... well lets be real it was a couple of weirdos that were doing it, unless it bubbles up from the dark corners of the internet you risk the Streisand effect by bringing attention to it.
AI can crank out 40 in a minute. 7200 in three hours. That's an entirely different beast. The sheer mass and volume ramps up the odds of any image bubbling up from the dark corners of the web falling into the limelight and now this problem that wasn't big enough to merit thought is rearing up it's ugly head right in front of us.
You can generate unique pictures of Taylor Swift faster than even Taylor swift can generate pictures of Taylor Swift. Within one hour of Taylor swift being seen with a man (and you have enough images of the man) you can create a dozen images of her on a date with that man and attempt to sell them to paparazzi.
The problem is volume. Just like how email made everyone connected and allowed the Nigerian Prince scandal to occur.
It's also not just limited to Taylor swift.
People don't care now because people don't thin famous people should have any right to dignity, but their minds are gonna change really quickly when it's their sister, mother or daughter.
I don't think many have gone viral on social media before or took less than 5 minutes to create. My uneducated guess is that previously this stuff would be in some niche forum in the recesses of the internet
My uneducated guess is that previously this stuff would be in some niche forum in the recesses of the internet
Not really. Back at the time there were public usenet groups specifically dedicated to the [hot actress of the day] fake porn.
I can see why people are upset, I can agree that distribution of these images can be an issue, but this has the same energy of "I am mad that a certain picture of me is on the internet, I demand that they take it down." Sorry, that's not going to happen any time soon.
I'm sure you do not need me to explain to you the cavernous difference between gimp and deepfake. I trust you are capable of that.
You could be honest and acknowledge that there is a massive difference in time investment and skill required between the old way of creating fake porn of unconsenting people and the new way.
I was a part of a Blursed AI group on Facebook that had been a lot of fun, but suddenly this week it first shifted to Taylor Swift porn, and then to alt-right MAGA shit very quickly. The comments on the Trump and MAGA related images were very on-board with it too. The change was so abrupt that I got the fuck out of there. Seemed orchestrated.
Platforms, including X, where the images were first shared
They also now have a dedicated platform at their disposal. Expect more trash to be posted first on X in the future.
Like back at the time they had Usenet groups, rotten.com and a long list of other sites to post fake porn and other discutible content.
Not that I am saying that is something right, just that is nothing new.
I didn't say it's moral or good or just -- but it's not illegal. My usage of fair game is in reference to fair use which is allowed under copyright law.
Try not eating the crayons.
If you meant a different term with a different meaning then you should use that term and even in that case I doubt that the fair use clause would stand as a defense.
I mean -- no one has taken it to court so you can't say one way or another. Is it fair use if I put a cover of a magazine into stable diffusion and have it change the background? If I put michelle obama on mars did i just break the law? [no] This is a legal rats nest.
Is it a problem though? I mean, it just makes Rule34 pics that much easier to create. And you wouldn't want to kink-shame anyone, now, would you? Why is it always heterosexual men who are kink-shamed? Why is liking naked women a bad thing?
Alright, I'll bite. To start, this is a real person that we are talking about. A real person who did not consent. Does that mean anything to you? The fact that there is a very real person that exists in very real life that has had this happen to them?
Otherwise, I agree. Nothing wrong with the male libido.
I wouldn't be so sure. Depending on where you are in the world, there dozens of laws that might interfere. Ranging from publicity rights to slander, especially if the images are photorealistic (enough).
100%, which is why the fault lies with the bad actors and the platforms that let this proliferate and not the tool itself.
Can you imagine this headline but with Photoshop instead of AI? It would be utterly silly.
This is orchestrated to create anger against AI. There's a lot of money involved in it and that money triples if consumers aren't allowed to run and distribute models on their own PC.
I can agree with you on principal. Just as long as you aren't distributing things like this I don't really see an issue. Not the tool, the distributor / platform. I also agree that these articles are meant to ensure that those technology can be held behind locked doors. I fully support the idea of making AI something that is self-hostable.
That being said there are people in this thread that see nothing wrong with distributing lewd pictures of real people (drawn, ai generated, or even hacked and stolen). That is the only thing that I was addressing.
Ya I agree, there's a very ugly side of things and It's a shame certain people are rolling themselves in it.
There's also the fact that lewds of celebs and similar material will grow exponentially but the same is also true for all other media so hopefully it balances itself out.
I think that's the main problem with a lot of these articles, they are missing the forest for the trees so to speak. We are looking at an explosion of culture, the bad stuff is just along for the ride. I'm personally excited for it.
This is actually super super tricky.
So, there's an exemption for 'Transformative' art, and while this is obviously pretty shady, it feels like there's a good chance this would qualify as transformative. Basically, you can't copy an existing photograph you don't own, but you can take an existing person and paint a new original picture of them.
We had a big lawsuit just last year where the Supreme Court clarified the line a bit. In that case, the art was found to be not Transformative, but they did a lot to explain why, and based on that, this would be super likely to fall on the side of 'Legally Allowed'.
I'm not a lawyer and can't even begin to answer that question. I was merely trying to get the conversation starting down that logical track, because I, personally, think that it is at the heart of the matter.
Looking this up, it seems that, at least in California, it probably would be considered illegal, at least according to this site.
So, this line of thought is not going to get AI fakes permitted, it's going to get rule 34 banned.
We've been censoring sex shit for a long ass time, in case you haven't noticed. The recent trend of information freedom is not going to defeat that old religious puritanical bs, and people's wishes for privacy on top of it.
Trump would shut that shit down fast. Conservatives want people reproducing, not masturbating, and he has christian supporters to keep in line, who do not like porn.
