AI fake nudes are booming. It's ruining real teens' lives
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
For a site that screams and cries about privacy of IP addresses and privacy of what sites you visit - apparently posting naked photos isn't a privacy violation?
Human beings feel vulnerable when they are naked, and exposure like that is humiliating. This is not a western society thing, it's a human nature thing
Plenty of cultures don’t have the shame around nudity that we do. It is not at all universal and feeling humiliated is just that, a feeling. You can choose to feel a different way if you want.
You're mixing two things. The fact that there are nude beaches in Canada for example doesn't mean the women want sexualized nude images or wouldn't feel embarrassed or humiliated by that.
There an important contextual difference you are missing.
This whole you can choose is rubbish. It can be used to excuse any form of victimization. It's not sufficient to hurt, violate or victimize someone and tell them to choose to have a better perception or attitude about it.
How about the people doing it change their attitudes on others privacy right and right to their integrity
Further, any efforts to impose real consequences on the victim such as denying a job or expressing that they should feel shame (as if they have done something wrong) are also unhelpful and should be roundly mocked and derided.
Now deepfake nudity is new and everyone is saying they are the end of civilization and if it happens to you your life is ruined. I mean, think about that phrase. Your whole life, ruined. No good anymore. Everything you ever were or could have been, destroyed.
Instead, we could all just decide that this isn’t a big deal. Like we have about many, many things before. Wouldn’t that be better than irrevocably ruining someone’s life if this happens to them?
But that’s cold comfort to a teenage girl being mocked from the next lunch table today.
Some social norms still have value and erasing all of them in the name of self determination and 'social safety' may push us into uncharted territory as a culture- the modern world has already made us impulsive enough.
People have been drawing naked pictures since they first figured out how to paint on cave walls. It's not going away. People have sex and are very interested in it. If they weren't we'd have died out as a species.
Also this is more about pornographic content (what is mentioned in the article) than nude art- there's a world of difference between having a crude charcoal sketch, a renaissance painting, and a degrading porn shot of someone.
What does that mean - "developed" mind shouln't be interested in sex? Does porn have to be degrading (for both sides)? You should better separate your own bias and then either have a better argument, or see the fallacy.
In fact I would go further and just ban discrimination on sexuality and/or availability of sexual material of someone. This is specially important when it comes to employment and housing discrimination.
However, laws aren't magic bullets and even it such a law were to be 100% followed, the creation of realistic fake sexual material of someone is definitely a serious violation of privacy and intimacy and thus people who make such materials ought be punished as for the violation of such fundamental rights.
This is to say, punishment of fake nude creators should be irrespective of whether or not they caused emotional distress.
But don't force it on those who do not want to do it.
A world where nudes of you are floating around and you can't make the claim that they're AI fakes is far worse than one where nudes of you are floating around and you can make that claim.
Even the slimmest of plausible deniability is enough to save face in a lot of situations.
This is why "Slut-shaming" works. If women could just say, "so what?" then it wouldn't be practiced in the first place.
Want to change that? Real tough. Maybe go for something easier like world peace.
The existence of the AI fakes will probably change the equation in time though. Women will gain plausible deniability because any nude could be a fake.
It's best to lead by example. There are a million other words to use to express how you feel about this. Consider shaking your vocab tree. I come in peace.
Edit: I stand corrected. I was unaware that this phrase is acceptable and even commonly used. My apologies.
There needs to be a version of Poe's law that deals with trolling vs emotional insensitivity.
I wish I could wave a magic wand and get each comment in threads like this annotated with contextual information. Stuff like age, what relationships with women the commenter has, etc etc. Note I don't think this is remotely possible, just that I'd really like to see the context behind some comments.
Although it is pretty much impossible to do anything about this, so people are just going to have to get used to it. Anything that manages to stop men being wildly interested in naked women will probably take out the entire species.
Long term, it becomes "normalised" and they will lose their value quite quickly. If one bully has access to the software, no doubt the victims will too.
Is this really much different to bullies sending out pictures of the victims marked up with slurs? Or even cartoons depicting them in degrading situations or acts, eg like a cartoon of Mohammed with his pants down maybe, or of politicians and pigs and whatever.
Obviously if we get to a world in which it's common to see nude photos of people that are AI generated, such that the inference is wrong, that might change. But for now at least, sending a fake nude photo of someone can hurt them by making people think wrong things about them.
(Whether it should hurt them, etc, are all irrelevant to my point btw - I'm saying there is a difference, not whether it matters or how.)
I don't think there are many people now, especially young people, who are unaware that AI can generate such content, so the assumption must be that nudes are most likely fake until proven genuine. So much so in fact that even actual nudes could probably be brushed off as AI fakes - I know that's what I'd do.
Imagine a similar fake was made of you. In it, you are shown to be performing sex acts your community and employer find objectionable. Would you want to be told to just get over it? Should women under threat of "honor killings" for perceived expression of sexuality or independence, just get over it?
Or imagine you're faked into saying political opinions that are the opposite of what you believe? Opinions your peer group find abhorrent?
Or you are faked into saying or doing something illegal?
It's not just your reaction that affects the outcome.
This is always a non-starter if people have psycho-social or political motivation for their position. Though regardless, it's also a low bar. A healthy society should ideally consist of people who are capable of feeling sympathy for people who have feelings in response to things which the observer does not share.
Are you going to go look at it? Sure, curiosity is a thing. Are you going to come back here and mock me? Are you going to tell me that my life is ruined? That I am worthless now? Are you saying that is an appropriate and reasonable response to seeing a nude picture of someone? Do you think that is what people should do to you if a similar picture of you surfaced online?
May I ask, does technology exist to serve people or vice versa? I always assumed it was the former. If so, why should we tolerate this technology? Who does it benefit other than bullies and sexual predators?
The upside is getting people used to photorealistic body fake images so that everybody knows that if compromising | embarrassing nudes do show up they're very likely fakes and being put about by people that deserve a bit of scorn.
"The technology" is hyper realistic seamless image creation - it has all manner of applications beyond titillating porn for schoolyards, moreover regardless of how we do or do not tolerate it there's no going back in the box.
It's time for focusing on judging people as we know them to be and damming tabloids that publish material that's very likely to be faked.
There's also a straightforward legal path out of this: add it to image and likeness rights. You distribute an unauthorized nude of a specific person the victim can collect $1000 per violation.