•

In Spain, dozens of girls are reporting AI-generated nude photos of them being circulated at school: ‘My heart skipped a beat’

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-09-18/in-spain-dozens-of-girls-are-reporting-ai-generated-nude-photos-of-them-being-circulated-at-school-my-heart-skipped-a-beat.html

While the police investigate, the mothers of the affected have organized to take action and try to stop those responsible

In Spain, dozens of girls are reporting AI-generated nude photos of them being circulated at school: ‘My heart skipped a beat’

Police investigation remains open. The photo of one of the minors included a fly; that is the logo of Clothoff, the application that is presumably being used to create the images, which promotes its services with the slogan: “Undress anybody with our free service!”

198 comments

aard

•

This was just a matter of time - and there isn't really that much the affected can do (and in some cases, should do). Shutting down that service is the correct thing - but that'll only buy a short amount of time: Training custom models is trivial nowadays, and both the skill and hardware to do so is in reach of the age group in question.

So in the long term we'll see that shift to images generated at home, by kids often too young to be prosecuted - and you won't be able to stop that unless you start outlawing most of AI image generation tools.

At least in Germany the dealing with child/youth pornography got badly botched by incompetent populists in the government - which would send any of those parents to jail for at least a year, if they take possession of one of those generated pictures. Having it sent to their phone and going to police for a complaint would be sufficient to get prosecution against them started.

There's one blessing coming out of that mess, though: For girls who did take pictures, and had them leaked, saying "they're AI generated" is becoming a plausible way out.

alvvayson

•

There's one blessing coming out of that mess, though: For girls who did take pictures, and had them leaked, saying "they're AI generated" is becoming a plausible way out.

Indeed, once the AI gets good enough, the value of pictures and videos will plummet to zero.

Ironically, in a sense we will revert back to the era before photography existed. To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on witness testimony.

Blapoo

•

Politics is about to get WILD

jet

•

Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho approves!

Shit's going to get real emotional

Blapoo

•

I'd vote for Terry Crews. No lie.

taladar

•

To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on witness testimony.

This is not going to work. Just because images and videos become less reliable that doesn't mean we will forget about the fact that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable.

Khanzarate

•

You say "forget" like it's not still incredibly common as evidence.

There's lots of data showing that eyewitnesses aren't reliable but that doesn't mean courts actually stopped relying on it. Ai making another form of evidence untrustworthy will result in eyewitnesses taking its place.

JoBo

•

Indeed, once the AI gets good enough, the value of pictures and videos will plummet to zero.

This just isn't true. They will still be used to sexualise people, mostly girls and women, against their consent. It's no different from AI-generated child pornography. It does harm even if no 'real' people appear in the images.

Fucking horrible world we're forced to live in. Where's the fucking exit?

GreatGrapeApe

•

It is different than AI-generated CSAM because real people are actually being harmed by these deepfake images.

JoBo

•

I was replying to someone who was claiming they aren't harmful as long as everyone knows they're fake. Maybe nitpick them, not me?

Reak kids are harmed by AI CSAM normalising a problem they should be seeking help for, not getting off on.

ToyDork

•

Permanently Deleted

JoBo

•

Not getting beyond your first sentence here. I am not interested in what fucked up laws have been passed. Nor in engaging with someone who wants to argue that any form of child porn is somehow OK.

ToyDork

•

Permanently Deleted

GreatGrapeApe

•

Im addressing you because you made the claim they are equivalent when they clearly are not.

JoBo

•

No I didn't. Go nitpick someone else.

Or better still, explain why you think AI-generated CSAM isn't harmful. FFS

SharkEatingBreakfast

•

Let's be real here:

Sure, it's not illegal. But if I find "those kinds" of AI-generated images on someone's phone or computer, the fact that it's AI-generated will not improve my view of that person in any possible way.

Even if it's technically "legal".

They tellin' on themselves.

Ataraxia

•

People who consume any kind of cp are dangerous and encouraging thar behavior is just as criminal. I'm glad that shit is illegal in most civilized countries.

Seudo

•

Sauce that allowing computer generated cp causes more harm?

JoBo

•

How is this place infested with so many fucking nonces?

I made no claims about "more harm" so what imaginary claim are you referring to in your attempt to justify CSAM?

Seudo

•

Oh, so you want more harm. Curious.

hansl

•

A bit off topic, but I wonder if the entertainment industry as a whole is going to be completely destroyed by AI when it gets good enough.

I can totally see myself prompting “a movie about love in the style of Star Wars, with Ryan Gosling and Audrey Hepburn as the leads, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, written by Vincent Hugo.” And then what? It’s game over for any content creation.

Curious if I’ll see that kind of power at home (using open source tools) in my lifetime.

Benj1B

•

I envisage a world where your browsing Netflix, and based on past preferences some of the title cards are generated on the fly for you. Then based on what you click, the AI engine warms us and generates the film for you in real-time. Essentially indistinguishable from the majority of Hollywood regurgitation.

And because the script is just a series of autogenerated prompts, its like a choose your own adventure book, you can steer the narrative the way you want if you elect to. Otherwise it'll be good enough to keep most monkey brains happy and you won't even be able to tell the difference most of the time.

Rootiest

•

Then the real money will be in hipster retro human-generated movies

Gsus4

•

And it will work, because we've grown used to Hollywood being so repetitive.

Zoomboingding

•

I know it's impossible to perfectly predict future technology, but I believe AI will exist alongside traditional filmmaking. You'll NEVER get something with the emotional impact of Up or Schindler's List from an AI. You'll be able to make fun action or fantasy movies though, and like you said, fully customized for the viewer. I imagine it'll be like CGI vs traditional animation now - you only see the latter for passion projects, but for most uses, CGI works well enough.

ParsnipWitch

•

This is already starting to happen for digital illustration. With better models and enough images saved, you can already train a model to replicate the art created by an artist.

Rootiest

•

Not so much replicate as simulate or produce art on the style of that artist.

AI can't replicate a piece of art unless it's only trained on that one piece of art, at which point you don't need an AI to make a copy anyway.

If you trained an AI on two paintings by the same artist, it will never produce either original painting, only blends of the two.

ParsnipWitch

•

That is why I wrote replicate the art (color composition, image composition, style elements, tone, etc.) not the art pieces. I also never wrote one or two images but enough images ....

Rootiest

•

Cool, we are on the same page

Cruxifux

•

Holy shit, I never thought of the whole witness testimony aspect. For some reason my mind was just like “well, nothing we see in videos or pictures is real anymore, guess everyone is just gonna devolve into believing whatever confirms their bias and argue endlessly about which pictures are fake and which are real.”

Witness testimony and live political interactions are going to become incredibly important for how our society views “the truth” in world events in the near future. I don’t know if I love or hate that.

hardware26

•

Not necessarily, solutions can implemented. For example, footage from private security cameras can be sent to trusted establishment (trusted by the court at least) in real time which can be timestamped and stored (maybe not necessarily even stored there, encryption with timestamp may be enough). If source private camera and the network is secure, footage is also secure.

AeroLemming

•

Permanently Deleted

taladar

•

I don't think that will matter very much considering how many real time video modifications we can do already today. Not to mention synthesizing video before the time it is supposed to take place.

Benj1B

•

Network security is a pretty big ask though - just look at how many unsecured cameras are around now. And once an attacker is in anything generated on that network becomes suspect - how do you know the security camera feed wasn't intercepted, manipulated, or replaced altogether?

lambalicious

•

To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on ~~witness testimony~~ flagrancy.

FTFY. Witness has never been that good a means to verify something is real.

Mattol

•

Maybe there will be cameras as well that sign the pictures they take?

sv1sjp

•

Thats why we need Blockchain Technology..

Check Blockchain Camera for example: https://github.com/sv1sjp/Blockchain_Camera

Abstract:


Blockchain Camera provides an easy and safe way to capture and guarantee the existence of videos reducing the impact of modified videos as it can preserve the integrity and validity of videos using Blockchain Technology. Blockchain Camera sends to Ethereum Network the hash of each video and the time the video has been recorded in order to be able validate that a video is genuine and hasn't been modified using a Blockchain Camera Validation Tool.

xigoi

•

How exactly does that prevent someone from uploading a fake video?

sv1sjp

•

The point is to know the time that a video has been uploaded as well as the previous and next videos from it for uses as security cameras, accidents in cars etc to be able to trust a video. (More information can be found on paper).

getoffthedrugsdude

•

It won't, you'll just be able to verify a source

taladar

•

Not even that. It only allows you to verify that the source is identical to (the potentially wrong information) that was claimed at the time of recording by the person adding that information to the block chain. Blockchain, as usual, adds nothing here.

devils_advocate

•

It proves that the video could not have been created at a later time.

fiah

•

Blockchain, as usual, adds nothing here.

it can add trust. If there's a trusted central authority where these hashes can be stored then there's no need for a blockchain. However, if there isn't, then a blockchain could be used instead, as long as it's big and established enough that everybody can agree that the data stored on it cannot be manipulated

nudnyekscentryk

•

but false, nonconsensual nudes are not collectible items that need to have their authenticity proven. they are there to destroy peoples' lives. even if 99% of people seeing your nude believe you it's not authnetic, it still affects you heavily

nudnyekscentryk

•

yeah but the problem is mere existance of tools allowing pornographic forgery, not verifying whether the material is real or not

Gsus4

•

How is that better than an immutable database where you guarantee trust simply by gettin your own public hash receipt for the database every time you introduce a new item? Why obfuscate things by riding the "Blockchain" hype bandwagon?

papertowels

•

Who manages and guarantees that immutable database?

Gsus4

•

A nonprofit with multiple synchronized copies of the database and you can get your own copy, synchronize, fork it if you have the space, like a GitLab repository. Remember this is not for secure transactions and to prevent double-spending like a currency. It's just an additive database. You don't need to overkill with a blockchain.

papertowels

•

Can you name a nonprofit you'd trust to manage court admissable evidence? How do you resolve differences that can pop up when forks don't agree?

Gsus4

•

Look, Git exists and image or document registration in an official onine database is Git diffs with less functionality because you can't remove previous commits: you just append new lines. This is a solved problem. If you're trying to solve a double-spend problem, then you need more than that, but it's overkill for your problem.

PS: maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but here's more discussion on this:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46192377/why-is-git-not-considered-a-block-chain

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59509764/is-git-distributed-or-decentralized

Seudo

•

Same goes for any deepfake. People are loosing their shit because we won't know what's real and what's not!.

We should have been teaching critical thinking a generation ago. Sagan was pleading for reform in the 90s. We can start teaching the next generation how to navigate the Information Age. What we can't do is make the world childproof.

Cethin

•

Yeah, what I see happening is people end up not caring as much because there's going to be so much plausible AI generated crap that any real stuff will be lost in the noise.

Turun

•

Quelle für das angesprochene Gesetz bitte. Das will ich im Detail lesen.

aard

•

Fang mit dem relativ neuen Fall hier an, und von da solltest du dann genug Info haben um selber zu suchen was die letzten Jahre passiert ist - das ist exakt das wovor damals gewarnt wurde, aber wer den hysterischen Irren die alles was irgendwie mit "Teenager entdecken Sexualitaet" mit dem Strafrecht erschlagen wollen mit durchdachten Argumenten kommt ist dann ja direkt auch ein Paedophiler.

https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/rheinland-pfalz/koblenz/lehrerin-kinderpornografischer-inhalte-konfisziert-deswegen-angeklagt-100.html

ciko22i3

•

At least now you can claim it's AI if your real nudes leak

taladar

•

In the long term that might even lead to society stopping their freak-outs every time someone in some semi-sensitive position is discovered to have nude pictures online.

SkyeStarfall

•

I hope so. We shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies or sexuality.

rufus

•

Interesting. Replika AI, ChatGPT etc crack down on me for doing erotic stories and roleplay text dialogues. And this Clothoff App happily draws child pornography of 14 year olds? Shaking my head...

I wonder why they have no address etc on their website and the app isn't available in any of the proper app-stores.

Obviously police should ask Instagram who blackmails all these girls... Teach them a proper lesson. And then stop this company. Have them fined a few millions for generating and spreading synthetic CP. At least write a letter to their hosting or payment providers.

crispy_kilt

•

Fined? Fuck that. CP must result in jail time.

rufus

•

I just hope they even try to catch these people. I've tried to look up who's behind that and it's a domain that's with name.com and the server is behind Cloudflare. I'm not Anonymous, so that's the point at which I'm at my wits' end. Someone enraged could file a few reports at their abuse contacts... Just sayin...

There's always the possibility they just catch the boy and just punish him. Letting the even more disgusting people in the background keep doing what they want. Because it would be difficult to get a hold of them. This would be the easiest route for the prosecuters and the least efficient way to deal with this issue as a whole.

pineapplelover

•

Prison at the very least and all the inmates need to know that you engaged in CP.

3R1C54ND3r5

•

I thought some kids did this?

rufus

•

I didn't follow how the story turned out that closely. I think it was a schoolmate who did this. I kinda split up my answer because I think if a kid/minor is the offender, it's not yet too late to learn how to behave (hopefully). But blackmailing people with nudes is a bit more than the usual bullying and occasional fight between boys we did back in the day. I trust some judge has a look at the individual case and comes up with a proper punishment that factors this in.

What annoys me is the people who offer this service. Advertise for use-cases like this and probably deliberately didn't put any filters in place not even if it's pictures of minors. I think they should be charged, fined and ultimately that business case should be banned. I (anonymously) filed a complaint, after writing that comment in September. But they're still online as of today.

So in my opinion the kid should be taught a lesson and the company should pay for this and be closed for good.

them

•

Yes, lets name the tool in the article so everybody can participate in the abuse

RaivoKulli

•

I doubt it will do much of anything not to name it.

DarkThoughts

•

Considering that AI services typically cost money, especially those advertising adult themes, it kinda does do support the hosters of such services.

RaivoKulli

•

Then again, naming and shaming puts pressure on them too. But in the end I doubt it matters. Those who want to use them will find them.

DarkThoughts

•

Of course, which isn't even the problem but rather people using the edited pictures for things like blackmail or whatever. From a technical standpoint it isn't too dissimilar to the old photoshopping. Face swapping can probably even provide much higher quality results, especially if you have a lot of source material to pull from (you want like matching angles for an accurate looking result). Those AI drawn bodies often have severe anatomical issues that make them very obvious and look VERY different to their advertisement materials.

Rediphile

•

You can literally Google 'AI nude generation tool' and get multiple results already. And I do sort of agree with you as I'm not sure how naming this specific tool was necessary or beneficial here. But I don't think not naming it is going to prevent anyone interested in such a tool from finding one. The software/tool itself is (currently) not illegal.

rayyyy

•

The shock value of a nude picture will become increasingly humdrum as they become more widespread. Nudes will become so common that no one will batt an eye. In fact, some less endowed, less perfect ladies will no doubt do AI generated pictures or movies of themselves to sell on the internet. Think of it as photoshop X 10.

DessertStorms

•

This isn't about nude photos, it's about consent.

andrai

•

I can already get a canvas and brush and draw what I think u/DessertStorms looks like naked and there is nothing you can do about it.

ParsnipWitch

•

The lack of empathy in your response is telling. People do not care for the effect this has on teenage girls. They don't even try to be compassionate. I think this will just become the next thing girls and women will simply have to accept as part of their life and the sexism and objectification that is targeted at them. But "boys will be boys" right?

Seudo

•

The number of people offering practical solutions instead of knee jerk feels... oh the humanity!

ParsnipWitch

•

Demanding people to just accept that this will happen and they just shouldn't feel bad about it is not a practical solution.

Seudo

•

Why?

ParsnipWitch

•

Because this is not a solution for the people who are actually victimized. It's just a solution for the people around those who are victimzed, so that they don't need to change anything or talk (or listen) about it.

DessertStorms

•

You're not making the point you think you are, instead you're just outing yourself as a creep. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

andrai

•

Hey, you dropped this \

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

taladar

•

Photoshopped nude pictures of celebrities (and people the photoshopper knew personally) have been around for at least 30 years at this point. This is not a new issue as far as the legal situation is concerned, just the ease of doing it changed a bit.

Jax

•

Have you ever posted a photo on Facebook or Instagram?

If the answer is yes, congratulations! You gave consent.

Black616Angel

•

Please show me where exactly the terms and conditions mention the production and publication of ai generated nudes on those sites.

Also eww, I would not want to be near you in real life.

Jax

•

You give them free reign to do literally whatever they want with your images the moment you post them. They OWN YOUR PHOTOS. The only reason you don't know about it is because you're fucking stupid and don't read their terms of service.

Signed: person who stopped using sites like Facebook and Instagram for this reason.

Edit: Sorry, I realized that reading isn't your strong suit which is why you demanded I sift through their ToS for you. It's under the privacy section of Meta's terms of service. Anything you post that is public immediately grants them the rights to your image.

You ever put an image on Tinder through Facebook, congrats: consent achieved.

I genuinely do not care if you are aware or otherwise. Your comment proves you're fucking dumb, and deserve your images being used against you for not protecting yourself from predatory social media sites.

ParsnipWitch

•

Jep, women and girls should just stay away from social media. Also, do not appear on other types of photos. Best stay under a blanket all times, since if some guy sees your face you gave him consent to do whatever he likes with that. You really are a pathetic human being if you don't see the problem with your mindset.

Jax

•

God you people are fucking dumb.

It is in their TERMS OF SERVICE. IF YOU ACCEPT THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE WITHOUT READING THEM, YOU DO NOT GET TO COMPLAIN. THIS IS NOT NEW, YOU ARE JUST STUPID.

3R1C54ND3r5

•

In Germany it doesn't matter what the Terms of service say when they are immoral or against a law. That's why most company insert a "Salvatorische Klausel" could be translated to salvatoric paragraph. In that way if an unvalid part of terms is in a Contract the rest keeps valid. Otherwise the whole thing would be worth nothing than the paper it is written on.

Black616Angel

•

You are right, they own my photos, this of course doesn't grant them the right to do anything with it and it as well doesn't give someone else the right, but what do you know? You are some lonely little sit harassing others online.

Delete your CSAM collection and then yourself please. Do something for us all, thanks.

3R1C54ND3r5

•

what is CSAM?

Jax

•

Jesus christ, you're a fucking idiot. Maybe if you went through English class without writing every report through sparknotes you'd have developed the critical thinking required to understand what a TERMS OF SERVICE agreement is.

It's not too late, you can always go back to school. Although, reading your replies, you're still too fucking dumb to gain anything from it.

Black616Angel

•

Wow, you have to be one of the most stubborn, stupid, insolent, arrogant, self-absorbed assholes, I ever had the displeasure of exchanging words with.

Eat a dick!

3R1C54ND3r5

•

what is sparknotes?

IrrationalAndroid

•

Jesus y'all really eat stones for breakfast everyday around these parts

SharkEatingBreakfast

•

The article is about children.

devils_advocate

•

The age of the victims is not really relevant. The problem would remain if the article were about adults.

SharkEatingBreakfast

•

The problem is very different here because they are children.

devils_advocate

•

Very different to what? AI identity theft is what creates the victims, independent of age (or clothing).

quams69

•

People already do this on dating apps with filters

MargotRobbie

•

Banning diffusion models doesn't work, the tech is already out there and you can't put it back in the box. Fake nudes used to be done with PhotoShop, the current generative AI models only makes them faster to make.

This can only be stopped on the distribution side, and any new laws should focus on that.

But the silver lining of this whole thing is that nude scandals for celebs aren't really possible any more if you can just say it's probably a deepfake.

PolarisFx

•

Yea, with 15 good headshots from different angles I can build a LoRA for anybody, hell Civit is full of celebrity LoRA's.

Mage.space already had to switch to SFW because people were generating CP. The past couple weeks I've been playing with stable diffusion and some of the checkpoints easily generate content that I had to delete because they looked REALLY young and it creeped me out.

GCostanzaStepOnMe

•

Other than banning those websites and apps that offer such services, I think we also need to seriously rethink our overall exposure to the internet, and especially rethink how and how much children access it.

MadSurgeon

•

We'll need an AI run police state to stop this technology. I doubt anybody has even the slightest interest in that.

GCostanzaStepOnMe

•

We'll need an AI run police state to stop this technology.

No? You really just need to ban websites that run ads for these apps.

negativeyoda

•

Can this come full circle so I can shirtcock it and later say, "dog, that's AI" when people post pictures?

Gsus4

•

Yea, that's the solution...or niqabs for everyone, lol.

benni

•

I don't know about AI nudes. But with normal AI generated pics, they have a specific style and genericness to them. Don't get me wrong, many AI generated pictures are hard to distinguish from real photographs. But on the other hand, many real photographs are easy to distinguish from AI generated pics. So you'd probably need to take the nudes in a specific way to have plausible deniability.

Sigmatics

•

The only thing new about this is that the photos are probably more realistic, but still fake. Apps to do this existed before GenAI was a thing

YurkshireLad

•

Maybe something will change as soon as people start creating and distributing fake AI nudes of that country’s leaders.

Risk

•

Honestly surprised this didn't happen first.

Be a great way to discredit politicians in homophobic states, by showing a politician taking it up the arse.

Sabata11792

•

Its already happened, and there is not enough In the world bleach to unsee it.

nicoweio

•

Black Mirror's The National Anthem might have gone differently these days.

tetraodon

•

Permanently Deleted

TheGreenGolem

•

You know the old joke: if we could do anything with just our eyes, the streets would be full of dead people and pregnant women.

helixdaunting

•

I've never heard that joke before, but that's brilliant.

uxia

•

Lol then people will probably start assuming anyone wearing that technology is a pedophile and/or disgusting creep.

nicoweio

•

I hope we don't repeat Google ~~Lens~~ Glass

bitsplease

•

I don't see how it won't, people are always going to be sketched out by the notion that the guy across from you could be recording you or taking pictures without your knowledge

Yeah phones can kind of do the same, but it's a lot harder to hide with a phone

nicoweio

•

Assuming Apple locks down their device enough, it should make it pretty clear when it's recording. Whether this notion becomes generally known and accepted, though, is a question in itself.

bitsplease

•

People already don't trust the webcams on their own machines to not record them, even when they have hardwired indicator lights, I really doubt that they'll suddenly trust tech that most people have no experience with to be frank.

I don't think it'll be an issue with the Apple Vision Pro specifically though, it's not like the Google Glass in that it's super convenient to wear when you go out on a regular basis. No one but an absolute weirdo is going to sit down at the bar wearing his Apple Vision Pro, it'd be like bringing your Quest 2 lol

UdeRecife

•

What do you mean? You got me curious.

nicoweio

•

Sorry, I meant Google Glass. People were weirded out and the term "Glasshole" was coined. Basically what the comment above described.

GCostanzaStepOnMe

•

As they should

Skates

•

(it will be a man)

I don't even know whether to upvote or downvote your comment because I can't figure out if you're trying to say that only a man would do something like this, or that no woman is technically proficient enough to do this.

Have a downvote for the ambiguity.

tetraodon

•

Permanently Deleted

Mr_Blott

•

I feel sorry for society as a whole when I read shit like that.

"Oh my god I'd love to make this about MEEE and be offended and morally superior somehow, but turns out my reading comprehension is that of a five year old so I can't figure out how to be offended"

AbaixoDeCao

•

That's really, really sad, EU, please try to regulate AI.

wolf

•

They can't, there's already open source programs people can use at home.

clausetrophobic

•

Yeah, but you can still regulate the content. Just because you can find CP on the web, doesn't mean that they shouldn't make it illegal. It deters people from it, and allows police to prosecute.

geissi

•

I think circulating nude pictures of people is already illegal whether they are AI generated or not.
So what is the next step?

cwagner

•

Permanently Deleted

Honytawk

•

How? By being even more privacy invading? Enforcing backdoors into software? Banning encryption? Monitoring the entire population?

cwagner

•

Permanently Deleted

wolf

•

"Enforcing it by enforcing it" isn't a meaningful statement, you're rephrasing the goal as if it were also the means.

What the other poster is probably saying is that enforcing these laws is done via some method. If the current method isn't working, what do you suggest changing?

wolf

•

I think circulating nude pictures of people is already illegal whether they are AI generated or not.

I thought so too, but it's not: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/law-jan-june02-scotus_04-16

geissi

•

In SPAIN

I know people don't read articles but it's the second word in the headline.

cwagner

•

Permanently Deleted

Aetherion

•

Better don't stop posting your life into the internet, this would push people to create more child porn! /s

danhab99

•

I tried the AI with a pic of me. It was incredibly inaccurate and gave me something between a dick and a vagina. Nothing truly damaging.

Rin

•

I'm morbidly curious

danhab99

•

Then upload a picture of yourself. I think every account is allowed one free try

LoafyLemon

•

Sooo, intersex?

electrogamerman

•

I also tried with a pic of me and it gave me a lot of muscles, a big bush and a weird dick, so it missed 2 out of 3

electrogamerman

•

This all would not be a problem if people appreciated nudism more. Im not even talking about people being nudists, just people accepting nudists. Once you take away the nudism taboo, all these photos won't matter at all

A2PKXG

•

So, how close to the real bodies are the fakes?

electrogamerman

•

Depends on how close is the body to the average body

uxia

•

Why are men?

electrogamerman

•

Because men

pinkdrunkenelephants

•

Reason #48373884 why generative AI should be banned

iegod

•

Definitely not down with banning. You can imagine nudity in your mind and redraw it. Do we ban thoughts and artists too? The AI isn't the problem.

pinkdrunkenelephants

•

No amount of false equivalencies will make me or anyone else accept something as stupid, dangerous and terrible as generative AI.

It's on you to accept you don't have the right to have a robot think and be creative for you, and that poor girl is one of many reasons why.

iegod

•

You're riled up, I get it, but your statements are simply not factual, as much as you want them to be.

LoafyLemon

•

You cannot put the genie back in the lamp.

pinkdrunkenelephants

•

You're not a genie, you're a lazy reprobate.

LoafyLemon

•

It's impossible to ban AI once it's allowed for public use because technology spreads rapidly, and enforcing a ban becomes impractical due to its widespread adoption and the difficulty of regulating it effectively. But hey, if you want to make an ineffective ban that will only affect one small part of the world, irrelevant to the masses, be my guest.

pinkdrunkenelephants

•

No it isn't. We can and have banned awful, terrible shit that became widespread before, and we'll do it again. To your precious AI you're dumb enough to allow to do your thinking for you. We'll even jail you for using the things.

That's what laws are for and if we believe what you're saying, then no law can exist.

LoafyLemon

•

Considering I'm not even a US resident, your government and laws cannot touch me, that's how irrelevant your knee-jerk reactions are.

Do you think China, India, or even members of the EU will stop developing AI because one country said so? Your expectations are highly unrealistic.

pinkdrunkenelephants

•

Other countries can ban you, too.

And I do think the EU is more likely even than us to ban you, or at least heavily regulate you.

You're living in a dream world if you think you can steal everyone else's artwork en masse, use it to generate art for you and think you can get away with it. It's going to happen. You're going to get banned.

LoafyLemon

•

I'm fine making art on my own, without AI, but thanks for your concern.

ProcurementCat

•

Permanently Deleted

Willy

•

doubtful. im consider doing it to myself

iByteABit

•

Governments need to strike hard against all kinds of platforms like this, even if they can be used for legitimate reasons.

AI is way too dangerous a tool to allow free innovation and market on, it's the number one technology right now that must be heavily regulated.

Blapoo

•

What, exactly would they regulate? The training data? The output? What kinds of user inputs are accepted?

All of this is hackable.

pseudorandom

•

It's child porn in this case. Regulate it as such. Putting a real child's head onto an AI generated body is sexualizing a child.

FUCKRedditMods

•

That’s not what he’s saying, he’s asking what grounds and mechanism they have for regulating the platform itself.

RaivoKulli

•

Making unauthorized nude images of other people, probably. The service did advertise, "undress anyone".

jet

•

The Philosophical question becomes, if it's AI generated is it really a photo of them?

Let's take it to an extreme. If you cut the face off somebody's polaroid and then paste it into a nudie magazine over the face of an actress. Is that amalgam a nude photo of the Polaroid picture person?

It's a debate that could go either way, and I'm sure we will have an exciting legal land scape with countries with different rules.

taladar

•

I suppose you could make a Ship of Theseus like argument there too. At what point does it matter where the parts of the picture came from. Most would probably be okay with their hairstyle being added to someone else's picture, what about their eyes, their mouth,... Where exactly is the line?

jet

•

Exactly. A bunch of litigators are going to get very rich debating this.

RagnarokOnline

•

I think it comes down to the identity of the person whose head is on the body. For instance, if the eyes had a black bar covering them or if the face was blurred out, would it be as much an invasion of privacy?

However, if the face was censored, the photo wouldn’t have the same appeal to the person who generated it. That’s the issue here.

A cutout of a person’s head on a porn star’s picture still has a sense of falsehood to it. An AI generated image that’s likely similar to the subject’s body type removes a lot of the falsehood, and thus makes the image have more power. Without the subject’s consent, this power is harmful.

You’re right about the legal battles, though. I just feel bad for the people who will have their dignity compromised in the mean time. Everyone should be entitled to dignity.

RaivoKulli

•

In this sort of situations the conclusion would be easy or in cases where we have the input photo. But absolutely it could get iffy

barsoap

•

Objectively it's absolutely not AIs don't have X-ray eyes. Best they could do is infer rough body shape from a clothed example but anything beyond that is pure guesswork. The average 14yold is bound to be much better at undressing people with their eyes than an AI could ever be.

Subjectively, though, of course yes it is. You're not imagining the cutie two desks over nude because it isn't them.

ParsnipWitch

•

How about we teach people some baseline of respect towards other people? Punishing behaviour like that can help showing that it's not okay to treat other people like pieces of meat.

WarmSoda

•

I'm pretty sure nude pictures of minors is already illegal.

RaivoKulli

•

I'm not sure if AI made ones count yet

WarmSoda

•

You go ahead and make AI generated kiddie porn and we'll find out.

RaivoKulli

•

I'm fairly sure there are legal cases about it, so no need to encourage anyone to make kiddie porn...

WarmSoda

•

Then wtf are you confused about? Lol

BolexForSoup

•

Permanently Deleted

Blapoo

•

Good point. What I mean by that is you can modify the prompt or the output to an extent where it can be argued "Nah, that's not her. It was just inspired by her for this result"

Is it illegal to draw from imagination someone else nude?

BolexForSoup

•

Permanently Deleted

iByteABit

•

Surely there will be loop holes, but there must be laws there in the first place. Better something than nothing

Risk

•

Good luck regulating cross borders.

I'd also prioritise regulating fossil fuel technology as the number one priority.

iByteABit

•

Fossil fuels is absolutely number one, I was talking about digital technology specifically

BakedGoods

•

Why? It's just proof that the old "don't belive anything you read on the Internet" saying was always relevant.

iByteABit

•

Maybe it would feel different to you if it was your daughter's fake nudes making their rounds on her classmate's social media

BakedGoods

•

Fake nudes have been around since the days of Kazaa and eDonkey. It's nothing new. The only thing hard regulation is going to do is to keep the public unaware of how AI can be used (and make them unable to defend themselves from those who use it for unsavoury purposes).

These outrages that keep getting spammed all over the Internet calling for regulation smell horribly of corporate astroturfing.

BolexForSoup

•

Permanently Deleted

BakedGoods

•

"You’re a white American male in college and it shows"

Very far off. Not even the right continent.

"How on earth is this corporate astroturfing? Corporations fucking love AI. They don’t want any restrictions on them."

Corporations have been calling for regulation on AI, so that it's only allowed as a service from them instead of being something anyone can do at home on their own hardware.

It's the same with a lot of the artist "outrage" over AI replacing them.

iByteABit

•

I know artists, they actually are worried and for good reason, and they are the last to have corprorate interests