https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elliston-berry-deepfakes-social-media-b2566806.html
Teenager Elliston Berry is calling on lawmakers to require that tech companies remove AI-generated pornography within two days of a report
My personal belief still is that the prohibitive approach is futile and ultimately more harmful than the alternative: embrace the technology, promote it and create deepfakes of everyone.
Soon the taboo will be gone, the appeal as well, and everyone will have plausible deniability too, because if there are dozens of fake nudes of any given person then who is to say which are real, and why does it even matter at that point?
This would be a great opportunity to advance our societal values and morals beyond prudish notions, but instead we double down on them.
E: just to clarify I do not at all want to endorse creating nudity of minors here. Just point out that the girl in the article wouldn't have to humiliate herself trying to do damage control in the above scenario, because it would be entirely unimportant.
While I think removing the stigma associated with having deepfakes made of you is important, I don't think that desensitization through exposure is the way to go about it. That will cause a lot of damage leading up to the point you're trying to reach.
I don't seen how else you do it.
"Removing the stigma" is desensitizing by definition. So you want to desensitize through... what? Education?
I dunno, but preferably some method which doesn't involve a bunch of children committing suicide in the meantime.
As a child protection caseworker, I’m right here with you. The amount of children and young people I’m working with who are self-harming and experiencing suicidal ideation over this stuff is quite prevalent. Sadly, it’s almost all girls who are targeted by this and it’s just another way to push misogyny into the next generation. Desensitisation isn’t the way; it will absolutely cause too much harm before it equalises.
Eve seen a deep fake nude of someone ugly? People make them because they wanna see you naked. Can't see how that's an insult.
This sounds like a cool idea because it is a novel approach, and it appeals to my general heuristic of the inevitability of technology and freedom. However, I don't think it's actually a good idea. People are entitled privacy, on this I hope we agree -- and I believe this is because of something more fundamental: people are entitled dignity. If you think we'll reach a point in this lifetime where it will be too commonplace to be a threat to someone's dignity, I just don't agree.
Not saying the solution is to ban the technology though.
When you put out photos of yourself on the internet you should expect anyone to find them and do whatever they want to them. If you aren't expecting that, then you aren't educated enough on how internet works and that's what we should be working on. Social media is really bad for privacy and many people are not aware of it.
Now if someone took a picture of you and then edited it without your consent, that is a different action and it's a lot more serious offense.
Either way, deepfakes are just an evolution of something that already existed before and isn't going away anytime soon.
Yeah I mean it's just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.
I agree people need to understand better the privacy risks of social media.
When you put out photos of yourself on the internet you should expect anyone to find them and do whatever they want to them.
Expect, yeah I guess. Doesn't mean we should tolerate it. I expect murder to happen on a daily basis. People editing images of me on their own devices and keeping that to themself, that's their business. But if they edit photos of me and proliferate, I think it becomes my business. Fortunately, there are no photos of me on the internet.
Edit: I basically agree with you regarding text content. I'm not sure why I feel different about images of me. Maybe because it's a fingerprint. I don't mind so much people editing pictures I post that don't include my face. Hmm.
Yeah I mean it's just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.
Photoshop has the same technology baked into it now. Sure, it has "safeguards" so it may not generate nudes, but it would have no trouble depicting someone "having dinner with Bill Cosby" or whatever you feel is reputation destroying.
Pretty sure they're talking about generative AI created deepfakes being easier than manually cutting out someone's face and pasting it on a photo of a naked person, not comparing Adobe's AI to a different model.
It's also worth noting that too many people put out way too much imagery of themselves online. People have got to start expecting that anything you put out in the public domain becomes public domain.
I second this motion. People also need to stop posting images of themselves all over the web. Especially their own kids. Parents plastering their kids images all over social media should not be condoned.
And on a related note we need much better sex-education in this country and a much healthier relationship with nudity.
You don't turn 18 and magically discover your actions have consequences.
"Not a heavy crime"? I'll introduce you to Sarah, Marie and Olivia. You can tell them it was just a joke. You can tell them the comments they've received as a result are just jokes. The catcalling, mentions that their nipples look awesome, that their pussies look nice, etc are just jokes. All 3 of them are changing schools, 2 are failing their years. Because of something someone else did to them. And you claim it's not that bad? The fuck is wrong with you?
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"
You right his parents have to be punished. They didn't teach him how to respect other properly.
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.
Perhaps at least a small portion of the blame for what these girls are going through should be laid upon the society which obstinately teaches that a woman's worth as a person is so inextricably tied to her willingness and ability to maintain the privacy of her areolas and vulva that the mere appearance of having failed in the endeavour is treated as a valid reason to disregard her humanity.
Ultimately I'm not sure where I fall on this issue, but the fact that you just mindlessly claimed that this person wants to see tits and clits, when they said nothing of the sort, just exposes how fully you realize you can't defend an actual position.
Common or not, they did not make the argument. You presumed a position and then used that made up position to launch an ad hominem.
I don't know how common it is to argue that women and girls should be treated as though they have worth and dignity regardless of their sexual proclivities and discretion, but it should be more common than it seems to be.
As for your assertion that holding this belief somehow betrays pedophilic sympathies - I have to admit, I don't follow. Although I will say whether the literacy failure in this argument is mine or yours I am content to leave as an exercise to our readers.
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.
We have been able to see faces since forever and people are still mocked for having faces that don’t fit the popular norms. Your argument is flawed.
i have vitiligo on my face, have yet to be mocked for it. People only ask about it respectfully.
People still have the right to privacy.
actually, no you don't. Very few places have legal protections for privacy, both online, and physically, if you go outside in most states in the US you're being trained on some sort of crime stopping AI dataset somewhere
All 3 of them are changing schools, 2 are failing their years. Because of something someone else did to them. And you claim it’s not that bad? The fuck is wrong with you?
and by the time they're 18 and moving on to college, or whatever they're probably busy not fucking worrying about whatever happened in high school, because at the end of the day you have two options here:
be a miserable fuck. try to be the least miserable fuck you can, and do something productive.
Generally people pick the second option.
And besides, at the end of the day, it's literally not real, none of this exists. It's better than having your nudes leaked. Should we execute children who spread nudes of other children now? That's a far WORSE crime to be committing, because now that shit is just out there, and it's almost definitely on the internet, AND IT'S REAL.
Seems to me like you're unintentionally nullifying the consequences of actual real CSAM material here.
Is my comment a little silly and excessive? Yes, that was my point. It's satire.
Victims of trauma dont just forget because time passes. They graduate (or dont) and move on in their lives, but the lingering effects of that traumatic experience shape the way the look at the worlds, whether they can trust, body disphoria, whether they can form long-lasting relationships, and other long last trauma responses. Time does not heal the wounds of trauma, they remain as scars that stay vulnerable forever (unless deliberate action is taken by the victim to dismantle the cognitive structure formed by the trauma event).
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.
Using this idea will give minors feel of complete safety when doing crimes. I don't think you have any sort of morals if you support it but it's a question for your local law enforcements. The crime in question can seriously damage the mental health of the vuctim and be a reason for severe discrimination. Older minors should be responsible for their actions too.
“This kid who is not getting any kind of real consequence other than a little bit of probation, and then when he’s 18, his record will be expunged, and he’ll go on with life, and no one will ever really know what happened,” McAdams told CNN.
“If [this law] had been in place at that point, those pictures would have been taken down within 48 hours, and he could be looking at three years in jail...so he would get a punishment for what he actually did,” McAdams told CNN.
There's a reason kids are tried as kids and their records are expunged when they become adults. Undoing that will just ruin lives without lessening occurrences.
“It’s still so scary as these images are off Snapchat, but that does not mean that they are not on students’ phones, and every day I’ve had to live with the fear of these photos getting brought up resurfacing,” Berry said. “By this bill getting passed, I will no longer have to live in fear knowing that whoever does bring these images up will be punished.”
This week, Republican Senator Ted Cruz, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar and several colleagues co-sponsored a bill that would require social media companies to take down deep-fake pornography within two days of getting a report.
“[The bill] puts a legal obligation on the big tech companies to take it down, to remove the images when the victim or the victim's family asks for it,” Cruz said. “Elliston's Mom went to Snapchat over and over and over again, and Snapchat just said, ‘Go jump in a lake.’ They just ignored them for eight months.”
BS
It's been possible for decades for people to share embarrassing pictures of you, real or fake, on the internet. Deep fake technology is only really necessary for video.
Real or fake pornography including unwilling participants (revenge porn) is already illegal and already taken down, and because the girl is underage it's extra illegal.
Besides the legal aspect, the content described in the article, which may be an exaggeration of the actual content, is clearly in violation of Snapchat's rules and would have been taken down:
- We prohibit any activity that involves sexual exploitation or abuse of a minor, including sharing child sexual exploitation or abuse imagery, grooming, or sexual extortion (sextortion), or the sexualization of children. We report all identified instances of child sexual exploitation to authorities, including attempts to engage in such conduct. Never post, save, send, forward, distribute, or ask for nude or sexually explicit content involving anyone under the age of 18 (this includes sending or saving such images of yourself).
- We prohibit promoting, distributing, or sharing pornographic content, as well as commercial activities that relate to pornography or sexual interactions (whether online or offline).
- We prohibit bullying or harassment of any kind. This extends to all forms of sexual harassment, including sending unwanted sexually explicit, suggestive, or nude images to other users. If someone blocks you, you may not contact them from another Snapchat account.
Is revenge porn illegal federally? Not that that would really matter, a state could still not have a law and have no way to prosecute it.
Given there was some state that recently passed a revenge porn law makes it clear your just wrong
On Snapchats ToS: Lucky never ran into the first point personally but as a teenager I heard about it happening quite a bit.
The second point is literally not enforced at all, to the point where they recommend some sort of private Snapchats which are literally just porn made by models
Don't know how well they enforce the last point
I looked it up before posting. It's illegal in 48 states, including California where most of these companies are headquartered, and every state where major cloud data centers are located. This makes it effectively illegal by state laws, which is the worst kind of illegal in the United States when operating a service at a national level because every state will have slightly different laws. No company is going to establish a system that allows users in the two remaining states to exchange revenge porn with each other except maybe a website established solely for that purpose. Certainly Snapchat would not.
I've noticed recently there are many reactionary laws to make illegal specific things that are already illegal or should already be illegal because of a more general law. We'd be much better off with a federal standardization of revenge porn laws than a federal law that specifically outlaws essentially the same thing but only when a specific technology is involved.
I apologize for the innappropriate behavior and bans by @TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml in this thread, I've removed them as a mod here, banned them, and unbanned the ppl who they innappropriately banned.
Note: if they get unbanned in the near future, its because of our consensus procedure which requires us admins to take a vote.
Thank you
They have another account on lemmygrad: https://lemmygrad.ml/u/TheAnonymouseJoker
Anyone around that knows the admins there so they take a look too?
Odd that there is no mention of the parents contacting the police and working through them to get the images down Technically and legally the photos would be considered child porn Since it's over the Internet it would bring Federal charges even though there maybe State charges Somethings were handled wrong if all the kid is getting is probation
photos
They aren't photos. They're photorealistic drawings done by computer algorithms. This might seem like a tiny quibble to many, but as far as I can tell it is the crux of the entire issue.
There isn't any actual private information about the girls being disclosed. The algorithms, for example, do not and could not know about and produce an unseen birthmark, mole, tattoo, piercing, etc. A photograph would have that information. What is being shown is an approxomation of what similar looking girls in the training set look like, with the girls' faces stiched on top. That is categorically different than something like revenge porn which is purely private information specific to the individual.
I'm sure it doesn't feel all that different to the girls in the pics, or to the boys looking at it for that matter. There is some degree of harm here without question. But we must tread lightly because there is real danger in categorizing algorithmic guesswork as reliable which many authoritarian types are desperate to do.
https://www.wired.com/story/parabon-nanolabs-dna-face-models-police-facial-recognition/
This is the other side of the same coin. We cannot start treating the output of neural networks as facts. These are error prone black-boxes and that fact must be driven hard into the consciousness of every living person.
For some, I'm sure purely unrelated reason, I feel like reading Phillip K Dick again...
They aren’t photos. They’re photorealistic drawings done by computer algorithms. This might seem like a tiny quibble to many, but as far as I can tell it is the crux of the entire issue.
most phone cameras alter the original image with AI shit now, it's really common, they apply all kinds of weird correction to make it look better. Plus if it's social media there's probably a filter somewhere in there. At what point does this become the ship of thesseus?
my point here, is that if we're arguing that AI images are semantically, not photos, than most photos on the internet including people would also arguably, not be photos to some degree.
The difference is that a manipulated photo starts with a photo. It actually contains recorded information about the subject. Deepfakes do not contain any recorded information about the subject unless that subject is also in the training set.
Yes it is semantics, it's the reason why we have different words for photography and drawing and they are not interchangeable.
The deepfakes would contain the prompt image provided by the creator. They did not create a whole new approximation of their face as the entire pool it can pull on for that specific part is a single or group of images provided by the prompter.
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 FFS, I clipped the word new. Of course it uses information in the prompt. That's trivial. No one cares about it returning the information that was given to it in the prompt. Nevertheless, mea culpa. You got me.
this is a ship of thesseus premise here
No, it really isn't.
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.
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?
The only way you could even tell if his attempted fascimile was close is if you had already intimate knowledge of the ship from some other source.
...when a heavily altered photo of something that vaugely resembles it’s original photo in most aspects, is considered to be a photo”
Disagree.
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)
I've only read do androids dream of electric sheep by him, what other book(s) should I check out by him?
Whether or not you consider them photos, DOJ considers them child porn and you will still go to jail.
Technically and legally the photos would be considered child porn
I don't think that has been tested in court. It would be a reasonable legal argument to say that the image isn't a photo of anyone. It doesn't depict reality, so it can't depict anyone.
I think at best you can argue it's a form of photo manipulation, and the intent is to create a false impression about someone. A form of image based libel, but I don't think that's currently a legal concept. It's also a concept where you would have to protect works of fiction otherwise you've just made the visual effects industry illegal if you're not careful.
In fact, that raises an interesting simily. We do not allow animals to be abused, but we allow images of animal abuse in films as long as they are faked. We allow images of human physical abuse as long as they are faked. Children are often in horror films, and creating the images we see is very strictly managed so that the child actor is not exposed to anything that could distress them. The resulting "works of art" are not under such limitations as far as I'm aware.
What's the line here? Parental consent? I think that could lead to some very concerning outcomes. We all know abusive parents exist.
I say all of this, not because I want to defend anyone, but because I think we're about to set some really bad legal precidents if we're not careful. Ones that will potentially do a lot of harm. Personally, I don't think the concept of any image, or any other piece of data, being illegal holds water. Police people's actions, not data.
404media is doing excellent work on tracking the non-consentual porn market and technology. Unfortunately, you don't really see the larger, more mainstream outlets giving it the same attention beyond its effect on Taylor Swift.
It's not been reported on much because it doesn't work that well. It's not as easy as they want you to believe it is. I'm pretty sure most of the "promotional material" has been photoshopped or cherry picked at best
It’s not as easy as they want you to believe it is. I’m pretty sure most of the “promotional material” has been photoshopped or cherry picked at best
absolutely, all of the material out there for marketing is digitally manipulated by a human to some degree. And if it isn't then honestly, i don't know what you're using AI image generation for lmao.
Wary of the bill. Seems like every bill involving stuff like this is either designed to erode privacy or for regulatory capture.
Edit: spelling
and that's what I loathe about the idiots who are for this stuff. Yes, I want to curb this stuff - but for fuck's sake there are ways to do it that aren't "Give big government every scrap of data on you".
There are ways to prove I'm over 18 without needing to register my ID with a porn company, or to regulate CSAM while not having to read private messages. Fuck, but we have the combination of circle of a venn diagram of idiot and control freak in congress, and they'll happily remove all of our rights over some fear of the boogeyman
I don't see a problem with that, I think that this information should be public, both prompt and result, because:
This is a very different subject from giving acess for your DMs. The only ones who benefit from this information not being publicly available are those who use "AI" for malicious purposes, while everyone benefits from privacy of correspondence.
No, and that's why I don't use Google or anything that isn't encrypted and sends any data that I consider private to some datacenter. And even when I know the data is encrypted, I am careful, as anyone should be, with data leaving your computer and going to someone else's.
"AI" is not the same thing. Why would I want my prompt to be private if I don't want to use the result in some malicious way, be it generating CSAM or using it to cheat someone to write an article, or to generate a Deep Fake video of someone for an internet scam?
I don't think people's right to generate whatever image they want to jerk off to is fundamental or more important than avoiding "AI" scams and CSAM generation. There are other ways to jerk off: there's plenty of real people porn online and also lots, lots, lots of hentai, for literally every taste. "AI" porn only has two particularities that are not satisfied by these two options, one is to generate the scene you want, and for the very remote possibility that what you have imagined has never been produced before, you can pay an artist to To do so, another is Deep Fake porn, which should be a crime, it doesn't matter if you're not going to publish the image.
Yes. It's very tiring having to constantly fight this battle. Unfortunately that's what they want cause if enough of us are too tired to care then eventually it slips through and we never get back what we lost.
In this case, yes. Visually indistinguishable from a photo is considered CSAM. We don't need any new laws about AI to get these assholes. Revenge porn laws and federal CSAM statutes will do.
If they can plant AI CSAM in my computer they can also plant "real" CSAM in my computer. Your point doesn't make any sense.
Nothing about your comment addressed why it should be treated differently if it's ai-generated but visually indistinguishable.
Just passing through, no strong opinions on the matter nor is it something I wish to do deep dive research on.
Just wanted to point out that your original comment was indeed just a threat that did nothing to address OPs argument.
It should be considered illegal if it was used to harm/sexually abuse a child which in this case it was.
Whether it should be classed as CSAM or something separate, I tend to think probably something separate as a revenge porn type law that still allows for distinguishing between this and say a girl whose uncle groomed and sexually abused her while filming it as while this is awful it can (and often does seem) be the product of foolish youth rather than the offender and those involved all being very sick, dangerous, and actually violent offending adult pedophiles victimizing children.
Consider the following:
Underage girl takes a picture of her own genitals, unfortunately classified as the unhelpful and harmful term "child porn" and she can be charged and registered as a sex offender but it's not CSAM and -shouldn't- be considered illegal material or a crime (though it is because the west has a vile fixation on puritanism which hurts survivors of childhood sexual trauma as well as adults).
Underage girl takes a picture of her genitals and sends it to her boyfriend, again /shouldn't/ be CSAM (unfortunately may be charged similarly), she consented and we can assume there wasn't any unreasonable level of coercion. What it is unfortunately is bound by certain notions of puritanism that are very American.
From 2, boyfriend shares it with other boys, now it's potentially CSAM or at the least revenge porn of a child as she didn't consent and it could be used to harm her but punishment has to be modulated with the fact the offender is likely a child himself and not fully able to comprehend his actions.
Underage boy cuts out photo of underage girl he likes, only her face and head, glues it atop a picture of a naked porn actress, maybe a petite one and uses it for his own purposes in private. Not something I think should be classed as CSAM.
Underage boy uses AI to do the same as above but more believably, again I think it's kind of creepy but if he keeps it to himself and doesn't show anyone or spread it around it's just youthful weirdness though really he probably shouldn't have easy access to those tools.
Underage boy uses AI to do same as 4-5 but this time he spread it around, defaming the girl, she/her friends find out, people say mean things about her, she has to go to school with a bunch of people who are looking and pleasuring themselves to fake but realistic images of herself against her consent which is violating and makes one feel unsafe. Worse probably being bullied for it, mean things, called the s-word, etc.
Kids are weird and do dumb things though unfortunately boys especially in our culture have a propensity to do things that hurt girls far more than the inverse to the point it's not even really worth talking about girls being creepy or sexually abusive towards peer-aged boys in adolescence and young adulthood. To address this though you need to address patriarchy and misogyny on a cultural level, teach boys empathy and respect for girls and women and frankly do away with all this abusive pornography that's super prevalent and popular which encourages and perpetuates abusive actions and mentalities towards women and girls, this will never happen in the US however because it's structurally opposed to being able to do such a thing. Also couldn't hurt to peel back the stigma and shame around sexuality and nudity in the US which stems from its reactionary Christian culture but again I don't think that will ever happen in the US as it exists, not this century anyways.
Obviously not getting into adults here as that doesn't need to be discussed, it's wrong plain and simple.
Bottom line I think is companies need to be strongly compelled to quickly remove revenge-porn type stuff (regardless of the age of the victim though children can't deal with this kind of thing as well as adults so the risk of suicide or other self-harm is much higher so it should be treated as higher priority) which this definitely is. It's abusive and unacceptable and they should fear the credit card companies coming down on them hard and destroying them if they don't aggressively remove it and ban it and report those sharing it. It should be driven off the clear-web once reported, there should be an image-hash data-set like that used for CSAM (but separate) for such things and major services should use it to stop the spread.
i believe in the US for all intents and purposes, it is, especially if it was sourced from a minor, because you don't really have an argument against that one.
I'm not sure where you're going with that? I would argue that yes, it is. As it's sexual material of a child, with that child's face on it, explicitly made for the purpose of defaming her. So I would say it sexually abused a child.
But you could also be taking the stance of "AI trains on adult porn, and is mearly recreating child porn. No child was actually harmed during the process." Which as I've said above, I disagree with, especially in this particular circumstance.
Apologies if it's just my reading comprehension being shit
It's actually not clear that viewing material leads that person to causing in person abuse
Providing non harmful ways to access the content may lead to less abuse as the content they seek no longer comes from abuse, reducing demand for abusive content.
That being said, this instance isn't completely fabricated and given its further release is harmful as it it involves a real person and will have emotional impact.
There's other instances where it was completely fabricated, and the courts ruled it was CSAM and convicted
There has been yes, but it doesn't mean it's the right ruling law. The law varies on that by jurisdiction as well because it is a murky area.
Edit: in the USA it might not even be illegal unless there was intent to distribute
By the statute's own terms, the law does not make all fictional child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. The mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the Internet, transported across state lines, or of an amount that showed intent to distribute.[
So local AI generating fictional material that is not distributed may be okay federally in the USA.
Serious value? How does one legally argue that their AI-generated child porn stash has "serious value" so they they don't get incarcerated.
Laws are weird.
Have the AI try to recreate existing CP already deemed to have serious value and then have all the prompts/variations leading up to the closest match as part of an exhibit.
Edit: I should add, don't try this at home, they'll still probably say it has no value and throw you in jail.
Practice what you preach. Read the thread again, what do you think "say something about you" mean?
Then don't defend them? You're trying to tell everyone that what is literally above in an article, about a child who had PHOTOREALISTIC pictures made of her, that it isn't CSAM.
It is. Deleting everyone's comments who disagree with you will not change that, and if anything, WILL make you seem even more like the bad guy.
why do i get the gut feeling that this is going to be an utter clusterfuck of a mess.
Hopefully i'm wrong.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The teen’s phone was flooded with calls and texts telling her that someone had shared fake nude images of her on Snapchat and other social media platforms.
Berry, now 15, is calling on lawmakers to write criminal penalties into law for perpetrators to protect future victims of deepfake images.
“This kid who is not getting any kind of real consequence other than a little bit of probation, and then when he’s 18, his record will be expunged, and he’ll go on with life, and no one will ever really know what happened,” McAdams told CNN.
The mom and daughter say legislation is essential to protecting future victims, and could have meant more serious consequences for the classmate who shared the deep-fakes.
“If [this law] had been in place at that point, those pictures would have been taken down within 48 hours, and he could be looking at three years in jail...so he would get a punishment for what he actually did,” McAdams told CNN.
“It’s still so scary as these images are off Snapchat, but that does not mean that they are not on students’ phones, and every day I’ve had to live with the fear of these photos getting brought up resurfacing,” Berry said.
The original article contains 585 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Wears the It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia picture when you need it?
-Republicans trying to Protect Save do SOMETHING with Children!
society has become so used to girls and women being considered less that there is a scary amount of rationalization as to why its fine actually to completely annihilate all remaining bodily autonomy they have left. this is an explosion in suicides of young girls and adult women alike begging to happen. wake the fuck up.
Your "gubment bad" position is reactionary. Your inability or unwillingness to understand how an AI generated image of a naked body with a minor's likeness superimposed on top of it is CSAM is telling of your true motivation. You are the type of person who reads 1984 and can't do anything but identify with the main character, completely ignoring how dispicable and low that character is. The state is by no means perfect but its a whole lot better than the bullshit you are peddling. Eat Shit and die pedo apologist.
That's all well and good to remove them, but it solves nothing. At this point every easily accessible AI I'm aware of is kicking back any prompts with the names of real life people, they're already antisipating real laws, preventing the images from being made in the first place isn't impossible.
Agreed. To me, making them is one thing, it's like making a drawing at home. Is it moral? Not really. Should it be illegal? I don't think so.
Now, what this kid did, distributing them? Absolutely not okay. At that point it's not private, and you could hurt their own reputation.
This of course ignores the whole fact that she's underage, which is on its own wrong. AI generated csam is still csam.
A friend in high school made nude drawings of another mutual friend. It was weird he showed me but he was generally an artsy guy and I knew he was REALLY into this girl and it was kind of in the context of showing he his art work. I reconnected with the girl years later and talked about this and while she said it was weird she didn't really think much of it. Rather, the creepy part to her was that he showed people.
I don't think we can stop horny teens from making horny content about their classmates, heck, I know multiple girls who wrote erotic stories featuring classmates. The sharing (and realism) is what turns the creepy but kind of understandable teenage behavior into something we need to deal with
All I'm hearing is jailtime for Tina Belcher and her erotic friend fiction!
But seriously, i generally agree that as long as people aren't sharing it shouldn't be a problem. If I can picture it in my head without consequence, seems kinda silly putting that thought on paper/screen should be illegal.
Exactly, and it begs the question too, where's the line? If you draw a stick figure of your crush with boobs is that a crime? Is it when you put an arrow and write her name next to it? AI just makes that more realistic, but it's the same basic premise.
Distributing it is where it crosses a hard line and becomes something that should not be encouraged.
It's not some slippery slope to prohibit people generating sexual imagary of real people without their consent. The fuck is wrong with AI supporters?
Even if you're a "horny teenager" making fake porn of someone is fucking weird and not normal or healthy.
AI generated csam is still csam.
Idk, with real people the determination on if someone is underage is based on their age and not their physical appearance. There are people who look unnaturally young that could legally do porn, and underage people who look much older but aren't allowed. It's not about their appearance, but how old they are.
With drawn or AI-generated CSAM, how would you draw that line of what's fine and what's a major crime with lifelong repercussions? There's not an actual age to use, the images aren't real, so how do you determine the legal age? Do you do a physical developmental point scale and pick a value that's developed enough? Do you have a committee where they just say "yeah, looks kinda young to me" and convict someone for child pornography?
To be clear I'm not trying to defend these people, but it seems like trying to determine what counts legal/non-legal for fake images seems like a legal nightmare. I'm sure there are cases where this would be more clear cut (if they ai generate with a specific age, trying to do deep fakes of a specific person, etc), but a lot of it seems really murky when you try to imagine how to actually prosecute over it.
all good points, and I'll for sure say that I'm not qualified enough to be able to answer that. I also don't think politicians or moms groups or anyone are.
All I'll do is muddy the waters more. We as the vast majority of humanity think CSAM is sick, and those who consume it are not healthy. I've read that psychologists are split. Some think AI generated CSAM is bad, illegal, and only makes those who consume it worse. Others, however, suggest that it may actually curb urges, and ask why not let them generate it, it might actually reduce real children from being actually harmed.
I personally have no idea, and again am not qualified to answer those questions, but goddamn did AI really just barge in without us being ready for it. Fucking big tech again. "I'm sure society will figure it out"
Reputation matters less than harassment. If these people were describing her body publicly it would be a similar attack.
If you really must, you can simply have the AI auto delete nsfw images, several already do this. Now to argue you can't simply never generate or give out nsfw images, you can also gate nsfw content generation behind any number of hinderences that are highly effective against anonymous use, or underage use.
Modern AI is not capable of this. The accuracy for detecting nsfw content is not good, and they are completely incapable of detecting when nsfw content is allowable because they have no morals and they don't understand anything about people or situations besides appearance.
These models are also already open sourced, you can't stop it. Additionally all of those "requirements" would just mean that AI would only be owned by big corporations.
I think that's one thing that's often forgotten in these conversations. The cat's out of the bag, you will never be able to stop the generation of things as they are right now. You'll just be able to punish people for doing so.
The current method is auto deleting nsfw images. Doesn't matter how you got there, it detects nsfw it dumps it, you never get an image. Besides that gating nsfw content generation behind a pay wall or ID wall. It would stop a lot of teenagers. Not all, but it would put a dent in it. There are also AI models that will allow some nsfw if it's clearly in an artistic style, like a watercolor painting, but will kick nsfw realism or photography, rendered images, that sort of thing. These are usually both in the prompt mode, paint in/out, and image reference mode, generation of likely nsfw images, and after generating a nsfw check before delivering the image. AI services are antisipating full on legal consequences for allowing any nsfw or any realistic, photographic, cgi, image of a living person without their consent, it's easy to see that's what they are prepared for.
I assume someone who is currently generating AI porn is running a model locally and not using a service, as there is absolute boat loads of generated hentai getting pised every day?
Sure for some tools. There are other tools that don't do that.
Chasing after the tools and services is a waste. Make harassment more clearly defined, go after people that victimize other people.
Web services and AI in general are completely different things. Web services that generate AI content want to avoid scandals so they're constantly blocking things that may be in some situations inappropriate, to the point where those services are incapable of performing a great many legitimate tasks.
Somebody running their own image generator on their own computer using the same technology is limited only by their own morals. They can train the generator on content that public services would not, and they are not constrained by prompt or output filters.
Depending on the AI developers to stop this on their own is a mistake. As is preemptively accepting child porn and deepfakes as inevitable rather than attempting to stop or mitigate it.
