A mother and her 14-year-old daughter are advocating for better protections for victims after AI-generated nude images of the teen and other female classmates were circulated at a high school in New Jersey.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, officials are investigating an incident involving a teenage boy who allegedly used artificial intelligence to create and distribute similar images of other students – also teen girls - that attend a high school in suburban Seattle, Washington.
The disturbing cases have put a spotlight yet again on explicit AI-generated material that overwhelmingly harms women and children and is booming online at an unprecedented rate. According to an analysis by independent researcher Genevieve Oh that was shared with The Associated Press, more than 143,000 new deepfake videos were posted online this year, which surpasses every other year combined.
Right, there are plenty of reactive measures available but the only proactive measures are either restricting availability of the source photos used or restricting use of the deep fake tools used. Everything beyond that is trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
At some point, communities and social circles need to be able to moderate themselves.
Disseminating nudes of peers should be grounds for ostracizing, but it really depends on the quality of people around you.
Ostracization doesn’t work. Ever. Period. If they’re bad enough, banishment works. Ostracization is just literally ignoring the problem.
That's just wrong. Unless you're hanging around shitty people, ignoring the bad ones by definition works.
And that's the point I was making, nobody can be "protected" from widely available photos being used on widely available programs. Best we can do is deter but that isn't a guarantee.
Are we seriously going to try and use someone's photos for dumb shit like this? Cone on, people just want something to wank to or someone to call over to have sex with, who the hell would actually do this?
Well evidently the answer to your last question is " some people". Your point would only make sense if all this was hypothetical
Even if you don't want to consider it CSAM, it is, at the very least, sexual harassment. The kids making and circulating these pictures and videos should be facing consequences. And the fear of consequences does offer some degree of protection at least.
It looks like pretty severe sexual harassment at best. Unfortunately the people I think are most likely to do it are teenagers with poor self control who don't realize the severity.
I think if schools can implement appropriate restorative responses and education on the harm done that could be much more effective than decaigan punishments after the fact.
Should a teenager face consequences for drawing a picture of their classmate naked? What if they do it well? How is this at all different?
If they distribute the drawing, yes. And the difference is that a drawing is immediately recognisable as a drawing, but an AI generated image or video isn't necessarily easily recognisable as not being real, so the social consequences for the person depicted can be much worse.
no. the article mentions"protecting" people several times. I don't see how anyone is protected by the proposed laws.
AI is out of the bag for all the good and bad it will do. Nothing will be safe on the internet, and hasn't been for a long time now. Either we will get government monitored AI results or use AI to combat misuse of AI. Either way isn't preventative. The next wild west frontier is upon us, and it's full of bandits in hiding.
Maybe it is just me, but its why I think this is a bigger issue than just Hollywood.
The rights to famous people's "images" are bought and sold all the time.
I would argue that the entire concept should be made illegal. Others can only use your image with your explicit permission and your image cannot be "owned" by anyone but yourself.
The fact that making a law like this isn't a priority means this will get worse because we already have a society and laws that don't respect our rights to control of our own image.
A law like this would also remove all the questions about youth and sex and instead make it a case of misuse of someone else's image. In this case it could even be considered defamation for altering the image to make it seem like it was real. They defamed her by making it seem like she took nude photos of herself to spread around.
There are genuine reasons not to give people sole authority over their image though. "Oh that's a picture of me genuinely doing something bad, you can't publish that!"
Like, we still need to be able to have a public conversation about (especially political) public figures and their actions as photographed
Seems like a typical copyright issue. The copyright owner has a monopoly on the intellectual property, but there are (genuine reasons) fair use exceptions (for journalism, satire, academic, backup, etc.)
Reminder that the stated reason for copyrights to exist say all, per the US Constitution, is “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Anything that occurs naturally falls outside the original rationale. We've experienced a huge expansion of the concept of intellectual property since then, but as far as I can tell there has never been a consensus on what purpose intellectual property rights are supposed to serve beyond the original conception.
Makes sense. If I do something worth taking a picture of that means I have zero rights to it since that is "natural", but the person who took the photo has all the rights to it.
Tell me this crap wasn't written for and by the worst garbage publishers out there.
Yeah I'm not stipulating a law where you can't be held accountable for actions. Any actions you take as an individual are things you do that impact your image, of which you are in control. People using photographic evidence to prove you have done them is not a misuse of your image.
Making fake images whole cloth is.
The question of whether this technology will make such evidence untrustworthy is another conversation that sadly I don't have enough time for right this moment.
If you have a picture of someone doing something bad you really should be talking to law enforcement not Faceboot. If it isnt so bad that it is criminal I wonder why it is your concern?
Can you address what I brought up?
In Germany it is illegal to make photos or videos of people who are identifieable (faces are seen or closeups) without asking for permission first. With exception of public events, as long as you do not focus on individuals. It doesn't feel dystopian at all, to be honest. I'd rather have it that way than ending up on someone's stupid vlog or whatever.
Wait you thought this was a problem for Hollywood?
It is for actors, since you would be handing over the right to your likeness to studios for AI to reproduce for eternity.
It was one of the main issues for the SAG-AFTRA strike.
Well at least they're getting paid for it. But someone could copy your likeness for free
They could be impersonating me as we speak!
Or their identity?
The tools used to make these images can largely be ignored, as can the vast majority of what AI creates of people. Fake nudes and photos have been possible for a long time now. The biggest way we deal with them is to go after large distributors of that content.
When it comes to younger people, the penalty should be pretty heavy for doing this. But it’s the same as distributing real images of people. Photos that you don’t own. I don’t see how this is any different or how we treat it any differently than that.
I agree with your defamation point. People in general and even young people should be able to go after bullies or these image distributors for damages.
I think this is a giant mess that is going to upturn a lot of what we think about society but the answer isn’t to ban the tools or to make it illegal to use the tools however you want. The solution is the same as the ones we’ve created, just with more sensitivity.
Many years ago I mentioned this on reddit. Complaining how photographers can just take pictures of you or your property and do what they want with it. Of course the group mind attacked me.
Problem just seems to get worse by the year.
That's because your proposal would make photography de facto illegal, because getting the rights to everyone and everything that appears in a photograph would be virtually impossible. Hell, most other kinds of visual art would be essentially illegal as well. There would be hardly anything but abstract art.
Bullshit.
Taking a photo of yourself or your family at a public landmark? Legal.
Taking a photo of yourself or your family at a celebration? Legal.
Zooming in on the local Catholic school to get a shot of some 12 year olds and putting it on the internet? Illegal.
We need to stop pretending that photography isn't a thing and that there is zero expectation of privacy if someone can violate it. This is crap we see with police using infrared cameras to get around the need for warrants and the crap we see of people using drones to stalk. You have the right to be left the fuck alone and if someone wants to creep on teens well sorry you are out of luck.
Maybe I'm just naive of how many protections we're actually granted but shouldn't this already fall under CP/CSAM legislation in nearly every country?
By.... checking the age of the person depicted in the image?
...who by definition is AI generated and does not, in fact, exist?
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
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.
Which fake people?
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?
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.
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.
Someone has to pay... this image is only 2 hours old....TWO HOURS OLD, YOU ANIMALS
In Germany, it would.
Not a lawyer, but 99% sure it's the same here in Canada as well.
Australia too. Hentai showing underage people is illegal here. From my understanding it's all a little grey depending on the state and whether the laws are enforced, but if it's about victimisation the law will be pretty clear.
Absolutely absurd. Criminalizing drawings is the stupidest thing in the world.
This case should already be illegal under harassment or similar laws. There's no reason to make drawings illegal
Yes, underage people can be charged.
Edit: Of course this is actual pictures, not generated.
So basically the link you posted has nothing to do with OP LOL
Honest opinion:
We should normalize nudity.
That's the only healthy relationship that we can have with our bodies in the long term.
There's a pretty big fucking difference between normalizing nudity and people putting the faces of 14 year olds in porn video through deepfakes.
Good luck both policing it and having a society with a healthy relationship with our biology and Ai technology without some sort of societal perspective change.
Here here!!
It's the idea that people may be less sexually depraved if we normalize people being naked. Duh. In my opinion the whole world just needs to normalize sexuality across the board. I think it would solve many of society's problems, frankly
Why is that a problem though? Youre allowed to draw a picture of a specific child naked, why is it suddenly a crime if you use a computer to do it really well?
For this to happen people would probably need to stop judging people on their bodies. I am pretty sure there is a connection there. With how extremely superficial media and many relationships are, and with how we value women in particular, this needs a lot of change in people and society.
I also think it would be a good thing, but we still have to do something about it until we reach that point.
There might be an upside to all this, though maybe not for these girls: with enough of this people will eventually just stop believing any nude pictures "leaked" are real, which will be a great thing for people who had real nude pictures leaked - which, once on the Internet, are pretty hard to stop spreading - because other people will just presume they're deepfakes.
Mind you, it would be a lot better if people in general culturally evolved beyond being preachy monkeys who pass judgment on others because they've been photographed in their birthday-suit, but that's clearly asking too much so I guess simply people assuming all such things are deepfakes until proven otherwise is at least better than the status quo.
In previous generations the kid making fake porn of their classmates was not a well liked kid. Is that reversed now? On the basis of quality of tech?
That kid that doodles is creepy. But deep fakes probably feel a lot closer to actual nudes.
Oooh that's bad. Yeah I would never do that but I did hear about the idea floating around back in the day, though I don't think the tech is there yet. It's just generally not cool
Yeah it sucks bro, but honestly I feel like it just means more people can just chat about porno and have a laugh, and honestly be coy, rather than play
So as a grown woman, I'm not getting why teenage girls should give any of this oxygen. Some idiot takes my head and pastes it on porn. So what? That's more embarrassing for HIM than for me. How pathetic that these incels are so unable to have a relationship with an actual girl. Whatever, dudes. Any boy who does this should be laughed off campus. Girls need to take their power and use it collectively to shame and humiliate these guys.
I do think anyone who spreads these images should be prosecuted as a child pornographer and listed as a sex offender. Make an example out of a few and the rest won't dare to share it outside their sick incels club.
That's fine and well. Except they are videos, and it is very difficult to prove they aren't you. And the internet is forever.
This isn't like high school when you went to high school.
Agreed on your last paragraph.
Then nude leak scandals will quickly become a thing of the past, because now every nude video/picture can be assumed to be AI generated and are always fake until proven otherwise.
That's the silver lining of this entire ordeal.
Again, this is a content distribution problem more than an AI problem, the liability should be on those who willingly host these deepfake content than on AI image generators.
The rest of the human body has more unique traits than the nude parts. Freckles, birthmarks, scars, tattoos. Those are traits that are not possible to replicate unless the person specifically knows.
Now that I think about it, we all proobably need a tattoo. That should clear anyone instantly.
Seems we're partially applying market dynamics of supply and demand. Simply assuming the "surplus" supply of deep fakes will decrease their value ignores the fact that the demand is still there. Instead what we get is new value opportunities in the arms race of validating and distributing deep fakes.
Why should they have to expend any energy proving it's not them?
I mean they obviously shouldn't have to, but if nude photos of you got leaked in your community, people would start judging you negatively, especially if you're a young woman. Also in these cases where they aren't adults it would be considered cp.
So they do it and share it around to slut shame you
You try to find a job and they find porn of you
It’s a lot worse than you’re making it out to be when it’s not you that gets to make that decision
IMO the days of searching for porn of prospective employees are over. With the advent of AI generated porn, what would be the point of that?
People are quicker to judge than they are to reason
There are so many recent articles linked on Lemmy about people losing their job over making porn. The days of losing jobs over porn is now more than ever.
Seriously? Maybe we don't read the same stuff but that's not something I've noticed.
I just can't imagine how that's possible. I wish someone would fire me over porn so I could sue them for unfair dismissal as well as defamation and or libel.
I wasn't very representative even when I WAS a teenager. I was bullied quite a bit, though.
And can you imagine those bullies creating realistic porn of you and sharing it with everyone at school? You may have been strong enough to endure that - but it's pretty unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to do so. And it's not a moral failing if somebody is unable to. This is the sort of thing that leads to suicides.
I don't think the problem is that the girls and ashamed of the fake porn. The problem is not even that other kids will believe it. The problem is that kids will use it to mock, bully and ostracise them. It's not being shared as 'OMG, you're so hot I made fake sex tape with you, marry me". It's being shared as "you're a slut that does porn, everyone thinks you're a bitch, go kill yourself'.
I see your point. In that way it's just like any other bullying, though more personal. Unfortunately, society hasn't done a good job of coming up with workable solutions for bullying. In this case, dragging the culprit behind the bleachers and letting the girls take turns kicking him in the nuts would be my go-to, but you can't do that sort of thing anymore.
You response highlights how the victims needs the power of community to respond appropriately, and how society excuses some forms of violence (involuntary porn) and not others (women getting retribution).
I think that the point this comment is trying to make is that because it has become so easy to make these images, their existence is not very meaningful. All deep fakes are very realistic. You can't tell fakes from originals.
Like as an adult, if I saw an "offensive" image of a co-worker, my first assumption would be that it's probably AI generated, my first thought would be "which asshole made this image" rather than "I can't believe my co-worker did [whatever thing]".
Not really. The more extreme it is, the more easily people will believe you when you say it's a deep fake. Everyone who matters (friends and family) will know it's not you. The more this sort of thing becomes commonplace, the more people will simply shake their heads and move on.
People kill themselves over much more mundane things than this. I think you overestimate teenagers unfortunately, not everyone can handle it as lightly as you would. Telling people to just "shake it off" will simply not work most of the time.
Sadly, you have a point. Somebody with good support at home and a circle of friends can weather this sort of thing, but others may feel helpless or hopeless. There needs to be an effective place to turn to for kids who are being bullied. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to exist.
That depends on a how a specific person is seen and treated by their surroundings.
A teenage girl who is already a victim of harassment or bullying for example will be treated very differently when humiliating images of her surface in her peer group, compared between someone who is well liked in school.
People who do this have to be judged much more harshly. This can't become the next item on a list of common sexual harassment experiences every girl and women "has to" experience.
I wonder what the prevalence of this kind of behavior is like in countries that aren’t so weird about sex.
This has nothing to do with "being weird about sex" and everything to do with men treating women poorly.
You can expect this to be worse in nations where women don't have as many rights and/or where misogyny is accepted as part of life.
Sounds plausible, we just abolished Roe, so…. It’s not looking great for the future of this issue in the US.
Yeah shit sucks
Kids don't know or understand the damage this can cause someone.
They see it as a joke most of the time.
It needs to be made illegal and the kids properly educated about why.
It's easy as an adult to condemn these children but we have a lot more life experience.
So, you’re saying both:
- It’s childish behavior
- It should be made illegal
So… you think the solution to childish behavior is putting kids in jail?
*deep breath* lemme try to see a more logical interpretation….
Wait, you did mention education, ok I musta missed that on my first read.
So educate the kids, and if they don’t learn… jail
Regardless, you want to punish children for childish behaviour.
Didn't say jail, you did. I in fact didn't talk about punishment at all.
But there has to be consequences.
If kids steal we don't just throw them straight in jail. But it is a possible consequence.
We're also talking about 14 year olds not literal children.
Illegal necessarily implies punishment, as far as I understand.
Also, 14 year olds are children. But the trajectory of this conversation is clear, and it’s not going anywhere.
the kids properly educated about why.
- DARE is celebrating its 40th anniversary.
- It has officer-led classroom lessons that reach 2,500,000 K-12 students per year.
- "Enriching students across the US and 29+ countries around the world"
If your argument is "The educators just need to make sure the kids learn that this is not a joke", DARE has been educating students about the dangers of illegal drugs for 40 years.
Overdoses claimed more than 112,000 American lives from May 2022 to May 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a 37 percent increase compared with the 12-month period ending in May 2020.
You might persuade some, but the problem will not go away.
DARE is known as a bad program, because it goes for fear mongering rather actual education. Everyone knows someone who uses marijuana, and they're teeth haven't all fallen out and they're haven't turned into a psychotic murderer. [VOX - Why anti-drug campaigns like DARE fail
There are good and bad ways to go about education. Like comprehensive sex education vs abstinence only, even though they're covering the same topic, actual education is much more effective than just say no. [NLM Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education study
That was my point. DARE didn't stop drug use. Any education will persuade some. However, unless the students and their families buy in at 100%, this problem isn't going away.
About 130 million adults in the U.S. have low literacy skills according to a Gallup analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education. This means more than half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 (54%) read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy
The starkest differences were seen by education group. Returning to the first question given above, in many countries adults with a "low" level of education (the equivalent of completing secondary school) had less than a 50% chance of getting the question correct. In places like Canada and United States, this fell to as low as 25%.
Education alone is not going to make this go away.
DARE is not a good example to hold up because the program doesn’t work.
Edit: to clarify, DARE has always been flawed and ineffective. There was a study in 1994 that showed this yet it didn’t stop or change the program.
You're using DARE as a positive example‽ the DARE program is widely considered to be an enormous failure. Here's a decent rundown:
https://www.talkitoutnc.org/....
(But if you just search it up you'll find hundreds of similar articles)
I was in school when the DARE program was quite strongly promoted and I specifically remember being fed endless misinformation about drugs. It was never about educating children it was about trying to scare them with bullshit.
"If they were wrong about marijuana being addicting they're probably wrong about everything else..."
...aaaaand that's how young people ended up trying all sorts of new things they shouldn't have.
Other people seem to think you're holding up Dare as a positive example. I can tell you're not, but I don't think it's a great negative example either. So much of the content is fear mongering bullshit that anyone who actually encounters drugs in real life will see through it.
Education works a lot better when you teach kids things that aren't directly contradicted by their experiences or their peers'.
Education will persuade some.
Education alone will not make the problem go away.
I think at some point kids need to learn that there won't be someone stopping them from doing bad things.
They need to suffer the consequences of their actions through social rejection. If the microcosm is so shitty that it doesn't ostracize people who disseminate nudes, then the people in it deserve to suffer until they improve.
This should be one of the easiest ways to identify shitbags, but I understand a lot of social hierarchies put shitbags at or near the top.
What does this have to do with the other? Where I live nudity isn't all that uncommon (when compared to the US, for example). But sexually harassing someone with fake porn is whole different issue.
I see a lot of problems with people having trouble understanding consent and struggling to respect other people. Those boys are weird about sex. That's the weirdness we should address.
My bad, I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. I meant, I wonder if boys would be so weird as to want to make such fake porn in places that are less weird about sex.
Did you think I was advocating for the fake images?
Naked pictures are all over the internet and they still wanted to make porn of their classmates. It's not about wanting the porn, it's about wanting to burt the girls.
I first thought it was more about the boys having a shitty concept, or no concept at all of consent… but that it was ultimately a horrible expression of interest in the girl. But no doubt both are possibilities. And neither is okay.
No I thought you meant that being hurt by fake porn about yourself is "being weird about sex".
I imagine, in a society where the appeal of such images is low, the sanctity of the image of the body probably isn’t a big deal and people wouldn’t be so hurt by them either.
Boys and men are pretty similar the world over. Some are always going to be creeps who do shit like this, it doesn't matter what culture they're in.
I mean, murder and theft is natural and predictable human behavior under the right circumstances.
Nobody said it was natural. Learned behavior reverberates through generations. Especially when it is more than one family that doesn't frown on such behavior. Cultural norms re-enforce bad behavior as "normal."
"They're just boys being boys, Your Honor!"
What's the fundamental difference between a deep fake and a good Photoshop and why do we need more laws to regulate that?
Lower skill ceiling. One option can be done by pretty much anyone at a high volume output, the other would require a lot training and are not available for your average basement dweller.
Good luck trying to regulate it though, Pandora's box is opened and you won't be able to stop the FOSS community from working on the tech.
photoshop is almost entirely automated now. and has phone apps that take it even further.
Fear.
Make "producing real or simulated CSAM illegal?"
Yes, I would argue that if CSAM was legal, there would be more of it...meaning it being illegal provides a level of protection.
It is where I'm at. Draw Lisa Simpson nude and you get a visit from the law. Dunno what the punishment is though. A fine? Jail? Can't say.
Edit: Apparently I was wrong, it has to be a realistic drawing. See here: 2010/0064/COD doc.nr 10335/1/10 REV 1
Lisa Simpson is shambles reading this
What about making depictions of other crimes? Should depictions of theft be illegal? Depictions of murder?
Why should depictions of one crime be made illegal, but depictions of other heinous crimes remain legal?
Because a picture of someone robbing my house doesn't revictimize me. Even if it's simulated, every time they run into some rando who recognizes them or every time a potential employer runs a background/social media check, it impacts the victim again
By dishing out punishment that really hurts.
I think in this case less mild punishment would send the appropriate signal that this isn't just a little joke or a small misdemeanor.
There are still way too many people who believe sexual harassment etc. aren't that huge of a deal. And I believe the fact that perpetrators so easily get away with it plays into this.
(I am not sure how it is in the US, in my country the consequence of crimes against bodily autonomy are laughable.)
Average American be like
Require consent to take a person's picture and hold them liable for whatever comes from them putting it on a computer.
Nah. Use my image and pay me what I want. If I can't make a Mickey Mouse movie they shouldn't be able to make a porn staring me. Does a corporatation have more rights to an image than I have to my image?
Very rarely do you need consent to take peoples pictures
*in the US.
In the US, the thought is that if you are in a public place, you have no presumption of privacy. If you're walking down the street, or shopping in a grocery store or whatever else, anyone can snap a picture of you.
Other countries have different values and laws such that you may need a person's permission to photograph them even if they are in a public place.
Really? Please show me the signed and notarized letter with the girl's name on it that says they agree to have their image used for AI porn. Also since she is a minor her legal guardians.
How would you possibly enforce that, or prevent people from just copying publicly available pictures for nefarious usage
President Joe Biden signed an executive order in October that, among other things, called for barring the use of generative AI to produce child sexual abuse material or non-consensual “intimate imagery of real individuals.” The order also directs the federal government to issue guidance to label and watermark AI-generated content to help differentiate between authentic and material made by software.
Step in the right direction, I guess.
How is the government going to be able to differentiate authentic images/videos from AI generated ones? Some of the AI images are getting super realistic, to the point where it's difficult for human eyes to tell the difference.
I wouldn't call this a step in the tight direction. A call for a step yeah, but it's not actually a step until something is actually done
hmmm - I wonder it makes sense to use generative AI to create negative training data for things like CP. That would essentially be a victimless way to train the AIs. Of course, that creates the conundrum of who actually verifies the AI-generated training data...
this doesn't work. AI still needs to know what is CP in order to create CP for negative use. So you need to first feed it with CP. Recent example of how OpenAI was labelling "bad text"
The premise was simple: feed an AI with labeled examples of violence, hate speech, and sexual abuse, and that tool could learn to detect those forms of toxicity in the wild. That detector would be built into ChatGPT to check whether it was echoing the toxicity of its training data, and filter it out before it ever reached the user. It could also help scrub toxic text from the training datasets of future AI models.
To get those labels, OpenAI sent tens of thousands of snippets of text to an outsourcing firm in Kenya, beginning in November 2021. Much of that text appeared to have been pulled from the darkest recesses of the internet. Some of it described situations in graphic detail like child sexual abuse, bestiality, murder, suicide, torture, self harm, and incest.
source: https://time.com/...
reading this, I don't really know what is supposed to be protected here to be deemed possible of protections in the first place.
closest reasonable one is the girl's "identity", so it could be fraud. but it's not used to fool people. more likely, those getting the pics already consented this is ai generated.
so might be defamation?
the image generation tech is already easily accessible so the girl's picture being easily accessible might be the weakest link?
Not a lawyer, but I'll take a stab. Pretty sure it's illegal to create sexual images of children, photos or not. It's also illegal to use someone's likeness without permission, but admittedly this depends on the state in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
Thanks for the valuable contribution to this discussion! It does appear this is a question of identity and personality rights, regarding how one wants to be portrayed.
Reading that article though, it seems like that only applies to commercial purposes. If one is making deep fakes for their own non-commercial private use, it doesn't appear personality rights apply.
Pretty sure it's illegal to create sexual images of children, photos or not.
Maybe in your distopian countries where drawings are illegal. Absolutely absurd you're promoting that as a good thing.
Yes but this thread is about just drawings in general. Deep faking someone into porn and spreading it around should absolutely be yourself. But it's not "child porn". It's some type of harassment or defamation or something
I'd say it's bullying and sexual harassment.
I would rather have them realize that other people are to be treated with respect.
Also, while we're at it, we should judge playing shooter games in a similar way than actual murder. /s
I think the best way to combat this is to ostracize anyone who participates in it.
Let it be a litmus test to see who is and is not worth hanging out with.
Yeah. Those horrible people can have a shitty life surrounded by other horrible people.
Let them be horrible together and we can focus on the people who matter.
These deepfakes don't disappear. You can ostracize all you like, but that won't stop these from potentially haunting girls for the rest of their lives.
I don't know what the solution is, honestly.
Why should it haunt them? Even if the images were REAL, why should it haunt them? I'm so tired of the puritanical shame women are supposed to feel about their bodies. We all have the same basic equipment. If a guy makes a deep fake, it is HE who should feel shame and humiliation for being a sick pervert. Girls need to be taught this. Band together and laugh these idiots off campus. Name and shame online. Make sure HE will be the one haunted forever.
I don't mean psychologically haunt them, I mean follow them for the rest of their lives affecting things like jobs and relationships. It doesn't matter whether or not they're fake if people don't think they're fake.
Naming and shaming who did this to them will not stop them from being fired from their schoolteaching job in 15 years when the school discovers those images. Do you think "those were fake" is going to be enough for the school corporation if it's in, for example, Arkansas?
The more common this becomes the more easily it will be dismissed.
The solution is for no one to care or make a big deal out of it, they're not real so you shouldn't care.
Welcome to society. First time?
Addendum, Closed Source AI.
Open source AI would be even worse.
According to what logic? Like I'm ever going to trust some lying asshole to hide his instructions for fucking anything that's MINE. News Alert: "Your" computer ain't yours.
People have been trying to circumvent chatGPT's filters, they'll do the exact same with open source AI. But it'll be worse because it's open source, so any built in feature to prevent abuse could just get removed then recompiled by whoever.
And that's all even assuming there ever ends up being open source AI.
gee here is a novel idea, dont let children have access to social media. that would solve a lot of other problems also
While I agree with that in principle, we shouldn't start blocking people, even young people, access to a lot of information.
Twitter, while now a cesspool, still has a lot of academics on it that share new ideas and discoveries.
Reddit, while shit, also has the value of helping people find niche hobbies and communities.
YouTube, while turning into shit, allows people access to video tutorials and explanations, hell while I was in school half the time teachers assigned hw that we would need to watch a YouTube video.
While it's an idea to block the youth from accessing social media, the drawbacks I think are too much.
In the end you can't stop it anymore than you can stop teen boys from wanking. Eventually there will just be fake nudes of everyone so it will have no meaning. It sucks, but it is how it is. Maybe people should get out in front of it by generating there own deep fakes of themsleves, but embellish them some so they have an obvious fakeness and age them up to legal age or something.
Not if it comes with normalising the behaviours these boys are showing.
They could still do it for self-gratification. And the problem in that is objectifying other people.
Regardless of whether or not they would still do it when nudity was something humans didn't have emotions over, it would still be wrongdoing against another person. That's the problem that has to be tackled.
I don't think it's less realistic than removing emotions about nudity in people.
Exactly.
Sounds like an easy fix, treat it as revenge porn and CEM and prosecute it exactly the same.
Little Timmy's gonna think twice about distributing stable diffusions of the cheerleaders after he sees mikey's life get ruined for that shit
I don't think kids think about consequences in this way. Also not sure if charging a 12 year old as a paedophile is the right move.
Mind clarifying
I'm not certain but I think in my jurisdiction I think distribution of CSM is the more likely charge than revenge porn.
For a 40 year old, spending 10 years in jail and the rest of your life on the sex offenders registry would be a deterrent of some kind. I ought not to do x because I don't want to bear consequence y.
For a 12 year old, even if they understand that some behaviors have very deleterious consequences, they have no way to weigh those consequences. How long is 10 years? Would this be a bit like being sent to my room? What is a registry? Making these pictures on the computer is illegal, downloading torrents is illegal, dad downloads torrents all the time.
I'm just saying that if the objective is to avoid the harm of victims, then heavy punishments are unlikely to achieve that.
Unfortunately, 14 year olds don't have the level of mental development for future consequences to reliably dissuade them from current impulses. For that matter consider how many adults did crime despite knowing the consequences. This approach will only succeed in filling prison with more kids.
How about we don't destroy a kids life for something that isn't against the law yet. Why can't we write the laws first then go after them. Give the kid a chance.
How many 'boys will be boys' second chances do you feel girls and women owe before they can start making laws about this and punishing the guys responsible?
As a bi guy, it arguably goes both ways, I feel like if a woman wants to objectify a man she is free to, if a man so much as looks at a woman he's automatically a creep, or potential "predator" meanwhile women in Saudi will get a good looking guy like Al Gala deported. Like what the hell right?!
I dont really think its a "boys will be boys" issue, and more that i dont think any child deserves to have their entire life ruined for something so early in their life. While i dont disagree that its very tramatic for the girls, and it is a really fucked up thing to do that should have no excuses for being acceptable, i feel there are better ways to tackle this issue than marking a 14 year old as a sexual predator or throwing them in jail barring them from a large portion of jobs, housing, etc. for the rest of their life.
But to be clear, i am a prison abolitionist in general, so take that as you will.
These girls are going to have their lives ruined because fake porn with their faces doesn't disappear from the internet. This could follow them for the rest of their lives. Where is the justice for them?
Um, what about the lives of the victims??
No jail, just forbid access to any computing device until age 18. That will scare them straight.
The kid is spreading kiddy porn and revenge porn
Little twerp deserves it and he don't deserve it any less just because he's younger than all the other sex offenders who deserved it.
You're getting downvoted but juvenile detention exists for a reason. All these people out here thinking children don't understand that laws apply to them should be wondering why kids aren't murdering each other or committing theft daily
They're focusing on the kid aspect because that's easier to fight in their eyes than the revenge porn angle, which I'm just gonna assume they've all gone and done
It's harmful, especially at that age. Psychologicaly it triggers a sense of violation of person. It's a sense of privacy being shattered.
Also not all people experience sexual awakening/understand they are sexual beings, by 14 or even 18. It is confusing/harmful to have that forced upon you.
Talk to a close female friend or your mother regarding how they feel about the AI deepfakr, and how they'd react in highschool if this happened to them. Really listen to the answer and you'll gain a better understanding of the harm done.
It isn't forced upon them though, they're not even involved.
Privacy has not been shattered because this is not something that happened in private. In fact, these nudes didn't happen in reality at all. It's imagined, either via AI or via human.
Talk to a close female friend or your mother regarding how they feel about the AI deepfakr, and how they’d react in highschool if this happened to them. Really listen to the answer and you’ll gain a better understanding of the harm done.
Said harm is because of social stigma and shame regarding perceptions of being seen nude, which is what I referred to as being weird. It is a vestige of our puritanical past that we could do without.
Now, if these girls are being harassed, that's a different matter, that can happen with or without deep fakes. I'm pretty sure we already have methods of dealing with that.
Said harm is because of social stigma and shame regarding perceptions of being seen nude, which is what I referred to as being weird. It is a vestige of our puritanical past that we could do without.
This has big "if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear" energy.
"Why would you hide behind clothes? Do you have something to hide?"
Look man, I think our past is puritanical too. However, this is just... I don't even know how to defend such a skeevy/creepy opinion.
People do feel violated by such actions, even when they don't have people harassing them. You can't lecture us and say they don't. You're not the arbiter of how other people feel about things, and feeling violated has nothing to do with prudishness. That's damage and emotional harm, and you hand-waving it away is pretty fucking gross.
Agreed
If we were talking about someone getting photos of these people nude through their window or similar, I would agree with you, It would be a violation, but that's not what we're discussing.
Feeling violated is not sufficient cause to criminalize this technology. There must be actual harm and I do not believe emotional distress over people looking at facsimiles of a nude photo clears this bar.
If drawing an illustration of someone nude from imagination is not illegal, neither should this be.
“Why would you hide behind clothes? Do you have something to hide?”
AI has no idea what they look like through their clothes, it imagines it based on a data set of other nudes. Deep fakes will never show whatever they want to hide.
they're not even involved.
They will be when it is spread to peers.
If it spreads from peers to them and affects them negatively, it's arguably harassment, which there are existing methods for dealing with. No different than if it were an offensive doodle or mean gossip, which are also unwanted creations.
Found the guy that makes cp of teenagers using AI
Clearly that's the only reason why I could possibly disagree? Lol, get bent. I just don't think we should make kids into criminals for using technology to imagine what their classmates look like naked.
I’m not sure if you’re trolling or not here or just lacking empathy.
Imagine a believable image, let alone video, of you with your full name and age on it participating in a burning cross ceremony in a white hood propagating through the internet.
This isn’t just some situation where it stays on a single person’s computer—it gets shared. And is effectively unstoppable.
I’m not claiming of knowing a way to handle this situation, but your comment is really confusing to me that you don’t understand the harms here.
Unfortunately that's the road we're headed down, and if there's an off-ramp I don't see it. Photo and video evidence alone will not be sufficient to prove claims in the near future.
You might be able to understand it if you imagined it happening to someone in your family, like an aunt or sister or your mother.
Tbh you've got a point despite the downvotes, but there's a lot of ladies out there that would be very upset with your viewpoint because they still hold onto the Madonna Whore complex
Ask gay men. It's certainly a thing, but I don't think a lot of guys seriously subscribe to the thinking, we're aware it's a thing but from my personal experience, I would imagine that most men don't care or prefer not to define nor judge women so quickly, it's more like a joke of a thought experiment when you think about it.
That's why men can share women, but will argue over property like who drives the car, but will still spit roast a woman if they're down for it. Also nobody knows why.
@lemmy.world
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
go to feed...
I don't know what a reasonable"protection" looks like here: the only thing foresee is 14 year old boys getting felonies, but no one being protected.
save