this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
341 points (93.4% liked)
Technology
59664 readers
3536 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'd like to share my initial opinion here. "non consential Ai generated nudes" is technically a freedom, no? Like, we can bastardize our president's, paste peoples photos on devils or other characters, why is Ai nudes where the line is drawn? The internet made photos of trump and putin kissing shirtless.
It's a far cry from making weird memes to making actual porn. Especially when it's not easily seen as fake.
I think their point is where is the line and why is the line where it is?
Psychological trauma. Normal people aren't used to dealing with that and even celebrities seek help for it. Throw in the transition period where this technology is not widely known and you have careers on the line too.
They're making pornography of women who are not consenting to it when that is an extremely invasive thing to do that has massive social consequences for women and girls. This could (and almost certainly will) be used on kids too right, this can literally be a tool for the production of child pornography.
Even with regards to adults, do you think this will be used exclusively on public figures? Do you think people aren't taking pictures of their classmates, of their co-workers, of women and girls they personally know and having this done to pictures of them? It's fucking disgusting, and horrifying. Have you ever heard of the correlation between revenge porn and suicide? People literally end their lives when pornographic material of them is made and spread without their knowledge and consent. It's terrifyingly invasive and exploitative. It absolutely can and must be illegal to do this.
Given that it can be done in a private context and there is absolutely no way to enforce it without looking into random people's computer unless they post it online publicly, you're just asking for a new law to reassure people with no effect. That's useless.
No, I'm saying make it so that you go to prison for taking pictures of someone and making pornography of them without their consent. Pretty straightforward. If you're found doing it, off to rot in prison with you.
Strange of you to respond to a comment about the fakes being shared in this way...
Do you have the same prescriptions in relation to someone with a stash of CSAM, and if not, why not?
No. Because in one case, someone ran a program on his computer and the output might hurt someone else feelings if they ever find out, and in the other case people/kid were exploited for sexual purpose to begin with and their live torn appart regardless of the diffusion of the stuff?
How is that a hard concept to understand?
What's hard to understand is why you skipped the question I asked, and answered a different one instead.
The creation of the CSAM is unquestionably far more harmful, but I wasn't talking about the *creation *- I was talking about the possession. The harm of the creation is already done, and whether or not the material exists after that does nothing to undo that harm.
Again, is your prescription the same as it relates to the possession, not generation of CSAM?
How can you describe your friends, family, co-workers, peers, making and sharing pornography of you, and say that it comes down to hurt feelings??? It's taking someone's personhood, their likeness, their autonomy, their privacy, and reducing them down to a sexual act for which they provide no knowledge or consent. And you think this stays private?? Are you kidding me?? Men have literally been caught making snapchat groups dedicated to sharing their partner's nudes without their consent. You either have no idea what you're talking about or you are intentionally downplaying the seriousness of what this is. Like I said in my original comment, people contemplate and attempt suicide when pornographic content is made and shared of them without their knowledge and consent. This is an incredibly serious discussion.
It is people like you, yes you specifically, that provide the framework by which the sexual abuse of women is justified.
I agree. For any guy here who doesn't care imagine one of your "friends" made an AI porn of you where you have a micropenis and erection problems. I doubt you would be over the moon about it. Or if that doesn't work imagine it was someone you love. Maybe you don't want your grandma's face in a porn.
Seems to fall under any other form of legal public humiliation to me, UNLESS it is purported to be true or genuine. I think if there’s a clear AI watermark or artists signature that’s free speech. If not, it falls under Libel - false and defamatory statements or facts, published as truth. Any harmful deep fake released as truth should be prosecuted as Libel or Slander, whether it’s sexual or not.
And is that OK? I mean I get it, free speech, but just because congress can't stop you from expressing something doesn't mean you actually should do it. It's basically bullying.
Imagine you meet someone you really like at a party, they like you too and look you up on a social network... and find galleries of hardcore porn with you as the star. Only you're not a porn star, those galleries were created by someone who specifically wanted to hurt you.
AI porn without consent is clearly illegal in almost every country in the world, and the ones where it's not illegal yet it will be illegal soon. The 1st amendment will be a stumbling block, but it's not an impenetrable wall - congress can pass laws that limit speech in certain edge cases, and this will be one of them.
I'm going to jump in on this one and say yes - it's mostly fine.
I look at these things through the lens of the harm they do and the benefits they deliver - consequentialism and act utilitarianism.
The benefits are artistic, comedic and political.
The "harm" is that Putin and or Trump might feel bad, maaaaaaybe enough that they'd kill themselves. All that gets put back up under benefits as far as I'm concerned - they're both extremely powerful monsters that have done and will continue to do incredible harm.
The real harm is that such works risk normalising this treatment of regular folk, which is genuinely harmful. I think that's unlikely, but it's impossible to rule out.
Similarly, the dissemination of the kinds of AI fakes under discussion is a negative because they do serious,measurable harm.
I think that is okay because there was no intent to create pornography there. It is a political statement. As far as I am concerned that falls under free speech. It is completely different from creating nudes of random people/celebrities with the sole purpose of wanking off to it.
Is that different than wanking to clothed photos of the same people?
The difference is that the image is fake but you can't really see that its fake. Its so easily created using these tools and can be used to harm people.
The issue isn't that you're jerking off to it. The issue is it can create fake photos of situations of people that can be incredibly difficult to deny it really happened.
I think the biggest thing with that is trump and Putin live public lives. They live lives scrutinized by media and the public. They bought into those lives, they chose them. Due to that, there are certain things that we push that they wouldn't necessarily be illegal if we did them to a normal, private citizen, but because your life is already public we turn a bit of a blind eye. And yes, this applies to celebrities, too.
I don't necessarily think the above is a good thing, I think everyone should be entitled to some privacy, having the same thing done to a normal person living a private life is a MUCH more clear violation of privacy.
Public figures vs private figures. Fair or not a public figure is usually open season. Go ahead and make a comic where Ben Stein rides a horse home to his love nest with Ben Stiller.
Lemme put it this way. Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. You talk shit, you're gonna get hit. Is it truly freedom if you're infringing on someone else's rights?
Yeah you don't have the right to prevent people from drawing pictures of you, but you do have the right not to get hit by some guy you're drawing.
Don't get me wrong it's unsettling, but I agree, I don't see the initial harm. I see it as creating a physical manifestation of someone's inner thoughts. I can definitely see how it could become or encourage dangerous situations, but that's like banning alcohol because it could lead to drunk driving or sexual assault.
Innocently drinking alcohol is in NO WAY compared to creating deepfakes of people without consent.
One is an innocent act that has potentially harsh consequences, the other is a disgusting and invasively violating act that has the potential to ruin an innocent persons life.