AI-generated porn is targeting women and kids all over the world
lite.cnn.com
lite.cnn.com
This will open up all sorts of debates about speech, etc. But that's another topic of discussion for me.
If you undress someone in your head that’s private but you don’t have the right paint, photograph or generate and share it in public
The problem comes with dissemination and intent.
Paint a nude and share it on your art website, ok - post it on the school’s chat group and send it to the models friends and family after you breakup ? Not ok
I'm not familiar with that social precedent being set.
Plenty of nude paints/statues/etc were made posthumously, and tons of them are now permanent monuments in public museums.
Few gave permission, but we as a society seem to think that's okay given our widespread dissemination of the art.
also the motivation matters : these works weren't made for reasons of malice, generally speaking.
A: real, consensual, and meant to be in public (ie porn)
B: real, consensual but not meant to be in public (ie revenge porn)
C: real, nonconsensual
D: fake, consensual, in public (very rare, usually for humor or shock effect)
E: fake, consensual, not meant in public (extremely rare, but it is a category)
F: fake, noncensual (ie this article)
The two major challenges today are
* there is no consent attached to photos, so viewers infer consent,
* and many people will incorrectly classify category F as category A, which is a form of reputational harm.
I wonder if fake nudes can be covered under libel or defamation laws.
Right, wrong, indifferent - this is where society is heading.
seek help.
(Maybe you missed the "wrong or indifferent" part? Maybe you're looking for a fight?)
I was recently accused of supporting one side or another of a war for discussing/analyzing the incentives of the warring parties.
This is pretty similar to that.
If you're talking about child porn, I'd rather pedophiles generate all the AI porn they want, rather than molest actual children.
> Last year, a New Jersey high school student launched a campaign for federal legislation to address AI generated pornographic images after she said photos of her and 30 other female classmates were manipulated and possibly shared online.
> Francesca Mani, a student at Westfield High School, expressed frustration over the lack of legal recourse to protect victims of AI-generated pornography. Her mother told CNN it appeared “a boy or some boys” in the community created the images without the girls’ consent.
In the US, minors attend high school from ages 14 to 18. Francesca Mani was 14 years old when this happened in the fall of 2023 [0].
[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/04/us/new-jersey-high-school-dee...
In a year or two, when there will be apps that can produce a naked video of anyone with just a clothed photo of them, nobody will believe these videos any more, just like nobody believes now that a photo of a dragon is proof that dragons really exist.
In Germany you can go to try he public sauna where everyone are naked: kids, their parents, grandparents, strangers etc. And they are ok with it meanwhile foreigners getting a panic attack.
Ps: free the nipples!
Are they ok with that or are you telling me they are to prudish for that ?
photogenerative AI isn't x-ray specs, it's a guess. That's exactly the difference here that people seem to ignore when making up hypothetical situations to compare it to.
Make up whatever AI image you want with my face plastered onto it, it still won't know what I have in my pants. Let's hope that I get a good seed number!
And what if it does? How do you dismiss it ?
“That’s not me guys, I swear”
Suddenly it became a problem now?
Women are regularly at risk of being fired from their jobs for the mere accusation of doing sex acts for pay. How would they convince anybody that they're fake without victimizing themselves further?
How will children - young girls who are already at risk of suicide due to body image issues - convince their bullies that the dozens of photos generated of them are fake?
Convincing AI images can be produced and distributed at volume by anyone with a cell phone. Any statement that this is no different from an artist painting a nude is disingenuous at best.
If anyone can produce fake nudes of anyone else with one click, why would any of them be believed? If I didn't want my nudes to have power, I'd flood the world with fake ones.
And for better or worse, most indistinguishable nudes of people were real up until these past few months. Convincing folks that such a monumental change has happened is going to be effectively impossible in a reasonable timeframe that will save jobs and lives.
Heck, the sentiment expressed in the original statement has shown up in every single post about AI nudes since they first started getting reported on.
Just yesterday we had some millions of people downloading and viewing Taylor Swift porn. Think they knew it was all generated by AI? Think they cared if they already wanted ammo to use against Taylor Swift?
Outside of the tech bubble, it's going to exist for lifetimes. Most people already don't care enough to educate themselves about what is real and fake when it validates their biases; cries of "this is AI generated" will be just another "fake news" magnet.