News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Would it? How do they prove the age of an AI generated image?
By.... checking the age of the person depicted in the image?
...who by definition is AI generated and does not, in fact, exist?
What? But they literally do exist, and they're hurting from it. Did you even read the post?
While you're correct, many of these generators are retaining the source image and only generating masked sections, so the person in the image is still themselves with effectively photoshopped nudity, which would still qualify as child pornography. That is an interesting point that you make though
The article is about real children being used as the basis for AI-generated porn. This isn't about entirely fabricated images.
Of course they exist. If the AI generated image "depicts" a person, a victim in this case, that person "by definition" exists.
Your argument evaporates when you consider that all digital images are interpreted and encoded by complex mathematical algorithms. All digital images are "fake" by that definition and therefore the people depicted do not exist. Try explaining that to your 9 year old daughter.
Go to this website and tell me who is depicted in the photo, please?
Are you daft? I assume that the person depicted in the photo at thispersondoesnotexist.com does not exist.
That image was generated by AI.
So do people in images that are purely AI generated exist, or not?
This is so tedious. If you have a point, then make it. Stop asking inane questions.
This question is based on a false premise, as though the technology used to create an image is relevant to what it depicts.
Of course in all cases, for all intents and purposes the depicted person exists. You can argue that a painting is just an arrangement of pigments on canvas and you would be correct, but to everyone else its still a picture of a specific person.
If you use a computer to generate an image that "looks like" a school-mate doing whatever thing, then an argument that the person in the picture does not exist because the image was generated by AI is moot, because for all intent's and purposes it's a "picture of" that school mate doing that thing.
Suppose that instead of generating photos of faces, thispersondoesnotexist.com generated porn. Who would be harmed then?
For the love of everything holy. This is not how grown ups discuss things. Make your point and stop asking dumb questions.
As you well know, no one is directly harmed by the simple act of someone viewing AI generated porn which does not depict a real person.
That said, the law in my jurisdiction does not discern between real or not. If it's an image (even hentai) depicting sexual abuse against a minor then it's CSAM. How do you know if the depicted person is a minor? That's a question for a jury. I'm sure there are arguments against this position, but it's merits are obvious. You don't need to quibble over whether an image depicts a real person or not, if it's CSAM then it's illegal.
Then why did you say that there was no difference realism-wise between an image generated by AI and an image generated by a camera?
Because it's true.
How can that be true if it is also true that people in AI images are fake and no one is harmed by them?
People in AI images of real people are real.
People in AI images of fake people are fake.
You fucking dunce. You did not read the article. People have been taking real pictures of real children, and using AI to remove their clothes. The real person is still in the image
Just ask ChatGPT to cut them in half and count the rings.
If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it's depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?
If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it's depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?
I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make?
It's relevant in this case because the age they are today is underage. A picture of them 10 years ago is underage. And a picture of anyone made by AI to deep fake them nude is unethical irregardless of age. But it's especially concerning when the goal is to depict underage girls as nude. The age thing specifically could get a little complicated in certain situations ig, but the intent is obvious most of the time.
I'm obviously not advocating or defending any particular behavior.
Legally speaking, why is what age they are today relevant rather than the age they are depicted as in the picture? Like, imagine we have a picture 20 years from now of someone at age 37. It's legally fine until it's revealed it was generated in 2023 when the person in question was 17? If the exact same picture was generated a year later it's fine again?
Basically, yes.
Is the person under-age at the time the image was generated? and ... Is the image sexual in nature?
If yes, then generating or possessing such an image ought to be a crime.
Ship of Thesseus
IDK why this dumb thought experiment makes me so grumpy everyone someone invokes it, but you're going to have to explain how it's relevant here.
How many pieces do you have to change before it's not closely enough related? If every piece is modified, is it the same base image? If it's not the same image, when does it cease to represent the original and must be reassessed? If it's no longer the image of a real person, given the extreme variety in both real and imagined people, how can an AI image ever be illegal? If you morph between an image of a horse and an illegal image, at what exact point does it become illegal? What about a person and an illegal image? What about an ai generated borderline image and an illegal image? At some point, a legal image changes into an illegal image, and that point is nearly impossible to define. Likewise, the transition between a real and imagined person is the same, or the likeness between two similar looking real, but different, or imagined people.
As with any law, there will undoubtedly be cases in which it is difficult to discern whether or not a law has been broken, but courts decide on innocence or guilt in such cases every day. A jury would be asked to decide whether a a reasonable third party is likely to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the image depicts a person who is under 18.
Whether or not the depicted person is real or imagined is not relevant in many / most jurisdictions.
You mean the real person being depicted? So this wouldn't apply to fake people?
Which fake people?
If the porn were of non-real people.
You can't ask questions on lemmy - people assume you have lots of subtext that isn't there.
Won't somebody think of the make believe computer generated cartoon children?!
Someone has to pay... this image is only 2 hours old....TWO HOURS OLD, YOU ANIMALS