News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
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
Unfortunately, I don't know that there is much to be done at this point. Even if every form of deepfakery were outlawed in the U.S., people would just do it via another country that allows it. They could hide what they were doing with a VPN.
The only way to even come close to truly combating this would be an international treaty. And even then, I think it's highly unlikely to get all of the nations to sign on to it, so people would just do it via Belarus or something.
Even detection tools will not do the trick, because, just like with malware, it will be a never-ending battle between detection tools and the deepfakes' ability to avoid detection tools.
At best, we can stop the wound from gushing so much.
yeah we should have taken it slow with these tools and understood them first. the cat is out of the bag now, i can only imagine the extent of political manipulation that will happen eventually.
It is akin to outlawing lying.
Treat the problem like cp. There is plenty to be done at this point. Not being able to fix it 100% doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it at all.
If someone completely independently generates and distributes pornography that ends up looking too much like a real person, and someone else downloads and keeps that image, should the downloader be prosecuted? That's what it's going to come down to, I think. If you want a law that requires intent, it will be too difficult to prove, and if you want a law that does not require intent, it may be a big overreach.
It's easier to write the law for CSAM because you have to be pretty fucked in the head to want to look at that in the first place. Making possession of it illegal isn't interfering with normal human activity.
Those are pretty good concerns. Wonder if meta data about the model used and the prompt data could be required to address the issue of intent. I do think that accidental downloading would have to be an exception but if it's clearly labelled/advertised I think that downloading could still be targeted.
Sure, but then that's a home run for every defense lawyer assigned to these. "Your honor, my client thought they were real photos she published," becomes a legitimate defense. "My client didn't realize a real person was involved at all, he thought the image was entirely fictitious." People publishing AI fakes aren't going to add exif data, and requiring meta data on AI generated images sounds like its own separate overreach.
I'd say for the sake of not jailing the innocent that letting the ones that can plausibly deny beat the charges is what we'd have to accept. I think that requiring that meta data would certainly be a significant new requirement but it doesn't necessarily make it an overreach. I believe that pornography production has to provide verification of the age of their participants and every porn site has some legal statement about the age of the people depicted. Categorize the meta data requirements similarly.
You can't treat it that way, because this is something that a complicit media is willing to share, and you cannot stop them from sharing it without going into major First Amendment violation territory.
Sure you can. Cp is something that complicit people are still willing to share. Generating and distributing fake non consenting porn of people doesn't need to be covered by the first amendment. Decide as a society that it's fucking gross and should be illegal and then treat violations of the laws created against it harshly.
That is not something that society has done in a long time. You are talking about something that was never legal in the first place vs. making something illegal that was already legal.
Was cp never legal? Are you sure we haven't made things illegal that we're previously legal? People have this weirdly defeatist view about regulating ai deep fakes that doesn't seem based on anything solid.
No, it was never legal.
Please re-read my post and do not put words in my mouth.
I gave extremely solid reasoning. What have you said that is so solid?
Nah you haven't really backed up with any solid reasoning. All laws have a date they were codified and enacted. Before that date the activities they covered were not yet illegal. Cp was at some point legal. Not long ago marital rape was perfectly legal. Now it's not. Revenge porn laws are going into effect. You totally can take something awful that was legal and make it illegal. It might not be immediate, perfect, or without resistance but it can be done and has been done, even recently.
It was never legal because all pornography was illegal first. And unless you want to go back to pre-Christian Rome, that's how it's been for centuries.
I'm still waiting for your solid reasoning, because so far, your 'reasoning' has been 'you can totally do it.'
I don't think you are trying very hard to see beyond your defeatist position. The revenge porn example should land close enough to the mark for you to see that things that were legal can be made illegal. Even types of porn can be made illegal. So because it has literally been done before, yes you can totally do it.
Also yes the centuries ago interpretation is fine. Still shows taking something that was legal and making illegal.
I'm sorry, but "pornography was legal in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, therefore we can stop deepfake porn now" is your so-called solid reasoning?
No and you are not engaging honestly at this point.
Since I have requested you to give me your solid reasoning multiple times and you haven't, and since you also put words in my mouth, you claiming I'm the one not engaging honestly is laughable.
You are usually better than this. I did give you a perfectly applicable recent example of a type of porn being made illegal but you are ignoring it and misrepresenting my argument, after getting touchy about words being put in your mouth. You requesting multiple times and then choosing to ignore the valid response is a failing on your part.
I missed this recent type example. If you mean child pornography, again, pornography being illegal predates child pornography. I didn't say child pornography existed in Ancient Rome. It didn't. It's a relatively new concept, mostly due to the invention of photography. There are virtually no examples that predate it.
So your example was not a solid one as you claim.
Also, I am "touchy" about words being put in my mouth because I don't like people lying about what I say. Maybe you're okay with libel, but I am not.
No I don't mean cp. I mean revenge porn, like I've mentioned multiple times. Are you reading what you are disagreeing with?
"So your example was not a solid one as you claim." If you're going to act haughty you ought to at least be right.
When was revenge porn legal in the first place? Do you mean pretty much immediately before it was identified, named and codified? So like two years?
You think that Polaroids that were supposed to stay private were not shared? Thanks for finally reading the posts btw. Also what does pretending that revenge porn only existed for two years get you in this case? Taking it as true, it shows that a rapid response to recently emergent social issue can occur and that laws can be enacted to outlaw the offensive but previously legal porn. It makes my point even more applicable.
And you think this rapid response is going to happen?
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/118-congress-bills-least-unproductive-chart
You can call that defeatist, I call it realistic. The Republicans aren't even passing laws giving them everything that they want that Democrats hand to them on a silver platter.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-kill-border-bill-sign-trumps-strength-mcconnells-waning-in-rcna137477
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/republicans--are-killing-a-tax-cut-203349220.html
And you think some sort of AI fake media law would even get out of committee? And it would somehow stop websites generating such fake content in Russia from disseminating it in the U.S.?
Outlawing cp doesn't stop it from being produced or hosted in other countries so we should give up on that too? Or should we sensibly keep a law against it on the books, build an international broad consensus to work against it, and apply political pressure to the countries that won't cooperate?
"There is plenty to be done at this point. Not being able to fix it 100% doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to fix it at all."
"It might not be immediate, perfect, or without resistance but it can be done"
Republicans are shitheads for sure but if nonconsensual ai porn presented to them with the right degree of moral panic they could accidentally do the right thing.
They aren't achieving anything. So why you think they might accidentally achieve something I don't know.
And maybe deepfake porn would be something they care about (although I doubt it), but they sure don't care about deepfake political images.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/4/25/23697328/biden-reelection-rnc-ai-generated-attack-ad-deepfake
So you feel this way about all progressive policies? Like gun control? In the face of opposition don't try.
In the current climate? Yes. It would be purely performative and a waste of taxpayer money.
So given the purely obstructionist nature of Republicans what is left for Dems to do?
Work on getting more Democrats elected. Because there is very little they will be able to achieve legislatively at the moment.
Hard to work on getting more democrats elected when the proposed platform is we won't do anything because the republicans will just say no.
"Won't" is not the same as "can't."
For winning voters it is.
Trying to do things and failing every time attracts voters?
Over not trying at all, yes.
I don't see why "we're wasting your money" is better than "we're fighting to get a majority so we can finally pass legislation."
Because "we are wasting your money" is false. They are either getting paid to try to advance progressive issues or they are getting paid to sit in their asses and promise to try once they have enough people. That they fail every time it's false too. Also assuming that putting up no fight doesn't hurt things is incorrect. Just letting the issue go and letting it become the new normal makes it harder to gain momentum on later.
You think drafting a bill is as easy and cost-free as just sitting there and doing nothing? Really?
You think that drafting no bills and promising to do it later is going to win more seats and not lose them?
Now you're changing the subject from what you just claimed. This is what you said:
Are you going to admit that drafting a bill costs more taxpayer money than not doing so?
Because just hiring legal experts alone, which should absolutely be done before drafting a bill, costs more money than not hiring them.
Dude the topic has been drifting for quite a while. You going to act like "getting more Dems" doesn't have a cost? You going to admit all the things you've blown past? Your proposal is to have them not do a major component of their job and instead focus on flipping seats blue. The money they get paid as elected officials gets paid either way. Either course of action costs money, doing the proper prep work for bills or campaigning. That famously so-cheap-it's-near-as-free campaigning. They will need to not only justify to their own voters keeping them elected during your do nothing policy but also convince other voters to elect more do-nothings.
Hold yourself to your own standards.