8 ms·
Reddit bans 'deepfakes' AI porn communities
- barrkel 9y agoThere's no way of putting this tech back in the box. And it's only going to get more powerful. What if someone combines it with some kind of "deep ageing", to create artificial child porn? Sexual representations of children, even if completely artificial and involving no victims, are illegal in many jurisdictions, but not all. We're only scratching the surface of what semantic editing of video is going to be capable of. It's a very big barrel of worms.
- ignoramceisblis 9y agoOne day I imagine we'll practically be handing out nukes to everyone. Actually I imagine that day won't come.
- crb002 9y ago3D printer. Only problem is refining the fissile material unless you have a fusion reactor laying around.
- IntronExon 9y agoYou’re seriously underestimating the precision involved in nuclear weapons. You’re not printing any of the explosive lenses, or any part of the physics package. You’re not printing neutron reflectors and absorbers either. Most of all though, assuming the ability to print some of what I’ve described emerges, it will not be in one compact, inexpensive device. Your boron composite printer won’t be your explosive lens printer, and so on.
- Toast_25 9y ago> What if someone combines it with some kind of "deep ageing", to create artificial child porn? Sexual representations of children, even if completely artificial and involving no victims, are illegal in many jurisdictions, but not all. It's not even that complicated. Petite actress + childs face. I take solace in that from what I saw of the subreddit, it seems like it's quite difficult to create something decent easily.
- ordinaryradical 9y agoAbsolutely true, and not that you’re arguing for this but: Just because the technology is out there doesnt mean we throw our hands in the air and give up. Yes it’s there, it’s going to be used for most of the nefarious cases we can imagine, but that doesn’t mean we have to tolerate someone using our image against our will. In fact, I would imagine that the data privacy advocates I often see on hn should see this as a logical extension of the privacy protections they want to see across the web. No, Lyft employees should not be able to view our trip history willynilly. No, the NSA should not be able to gobble up all of our google searches for profiling us. And no, we should not have to suffer being put in porn against our will because we are a person in the public eye. This stuff should be treated like revenge porn, IMO. Functionally it’s the same even if the technical implementation is different
- autokad 9y agoi am on the fence. using my face, and making money off it without my permission seems wrong. however, what if the 'animated' porn star just happens to look like me? inevitably, a generated porn star will look like SOMEONE. for me, this is getting murky. then there is the case that the program generates porn for me. if i privately generate porn using a famous person's image, to me - thats my right. no different than me fantasizing about them in my head.
- ordinaryradical 9y agoJust to clarify the conundrum in your second paragraph: this is definitively privileging your privacy over someone else’s. What you do in private is your business, yes, but that doesn’t give you the right to be a voyeur simply because you are doing so in seclusion. That’s why I think this is a poor argument.
- autokad 9y agovoyeur: "a person who gains sexual pleasure from watching others when they are naked or engaged in sexual activity." is not illegal. its kinda the very definition of watching porn. i wouldnt be violating their privacy any more than taping a picture to a pillow and humping it. are you claiming that is illegal? if not, then it feels like its the quality of the 'content' you are against, not the act.
- Tech-Noir 9y agoThe tech is just a special effect, and I find it weird that so many people go straight to the most fucked up use case, or even imagine new possibilities (deep aging? Jesus) or even (elsewhere) start arguing for more laws because of it. Meanwhile nobody fixates on all the horrible stuff that can be done with cameras or Photoshop or Poser. You can, or will be able to soon, do previously Hollywood standard effects at home. You could put Tom Cruise in your wedding video. You could put yourself in Mission Impossible. You could have the cast of the Magnificent Seven in the movie you created with a few mates. You could do tons of imaginative, funny, creative stuff. Celeb porn, sticking the head of a baby on the body of an adult porn star or any other sad/weird porn related use - all of which has done with images for a quarter of a century - are the least interesting things about this. As to the reddit ban, I doubt anyone is surprised.
- xkcd-sucks 9y agoThe decision that makes voat.co become successful?
- infinitePixels 9y agoBan all you want, it’s not illegal, and silly to suggest as much. Here’s a picture I drew of your mom. Look at those stink lines. Arrest me.
- randyrand 9y agoLooks like voat.com/v/deepfakes has already existed for while in anticipation.
- IntronExon 9y agoVoat could create subs to give away free money, candy, and blowjobs and they’d still have more tumbleweeds than active users.
- dna_polymerase 9y agoTo me it looks like voat is just the ulta-toxic communities from reddit joined together. I am a fan of real free speech without banning stuff that could offend some people, yet voat does not feel like a solution for that (same goes for Gab, seems like people there are more interested to see Twitter fail than coming together as a community and create a viable environment). That said, I think this will again drive some more people to voat. What it definitely won't do is stopping people from doing deepfakes.
- prepend 9y agoI feel similarly. I want free speech, but tempered enough to not bum me out. Reddit is too constrictive, voat is almost as bad as 4chan. I long for the olden days when bbs allowed for lots of diverse stuff without people being banned for mentioning a leaked game of throne episode, or cgi boob. Right now, I feel similarly toward Reddit as Google- moving in an anti-user direction, but no viable alternative to quit to.
- greymeister 9y agoIt's telling that other replies to this were a (justifiable) critique of the voat community. Another example of an effect of giant centralized communities (social networks) dominating online discussion. When one of them decides some content isn't acceptable, there are only fringe alternatives out in the Internet wilderness.
- yongjik 9y ago
- downer72 9y agoBan all you want, it’s not illegal, and silly to suggest as much. Here’s a picture I drew of your mom. Look at those stink lines. Arrest me.
- Cynddl 9y agoIt can actually be considered as a form of harassement or defamation. While it might be a gray area in the US, it is likely not going to be the same in Europe.
- yakitori 9y agoEurope is fairly backwards when it comes to free speech. A guy who made a silly video of his dog doing a nazi salute is getting charged in britain. Someone who criticized the turkish leader almost got prosecuted by the german government. Poland just enacted a law where if you call something a "polish death camp", you can be jailed. Russia loved europe's censorship laws so much, they copied it. For some ridiculous reason, people think europe is the bastion of freedom and human rights. There is a reason why these people gave us nazism and communism. Europeans have no understanding of what human rights and especially free speech means. These are american ideals alien to european shores.
- mark_edward 9y agoDo you actually think a slave-driving genocidal America invented freedom?
- excalibur 9y agoFake porn of celebrities has been prevalent on the Internet for a long time. I don't have precise statistics, but I think it might predate the web. For the most part it hasn't been particularly controversial. Now that advances in technology have significantly improved the quality, everybody suddenly has a problem with it. Let's back this up a few steps. You're an actor, you appear on television. By being filmed and accepting the pay offered to you, you're agreeing to allow these images of you be disseminated to the general public, for their enjoyment. But what if somebody finds you attractive, and looks at your picture whilst... you know. Can you sue? No, they're well within their rights to do so. What if they cut your face out and place it over a Playboy centerfold? Same deal. Several technogical innovations later, here we are. Fundamentally, nothing has changed. Fundamentally, people are still 100% within their rights to combine images legally obtained in this way. And post them online. This may not be what the Internet was created for, but this was always what it was used for.
- llukas 9y ago> And post them online. Mass redistribution of somebody image is not a "right".
- superkuh 9y agoLuckily in the free world we don't need "rights" in order to do things. In third world countries people are often put in prison for photoshoping their leaders. Hopefully this trend towards that kind of authoritarianism doesn't continue in the west.
- bradbeattie 9y agoI'm on the fence on this one. If I draw a stick figure and put your name above it, is that unethical? What if I add a speech bubble saying something risqué? What if I'm a talented artist and I draw something pretty life-like? I don't see the lines here being too clear without claiming down on all expression.
- FLUX-YOU 9y agoNone of these examples are really anywhere close to deepfake porn videos. - Porn is done under consent, where participants should be reasonably aware that it will be published - Porn tarnishes reputations If you pasted Daisy Ridley's face in a crowd in, say, China, doing every day stuff, no one would rightly care because there's no real potential unless you are doing it for some ulterior motive.
- bradbeattie 9y agoI think how convincing a piece of media may be is at the crux of this issue. Photoshopped heads of celebrities on porn actors' bodies have been around for some time now and isn't, to my knowledge, illegal. The key difference here is that people hold video to be more trustworthy. Given the advancements in CG and now more recently with deep fakes, perhaps that's what needs to change; People should stop trusting video footage.
- FLUX-YOU 9y agoI agree, since the every day person's idea of what is possible is entirely cultural and that will change and advance, although it doesn't necessarily need to be illegal for it to be pushed out to the seedier parts of the internet and off of the more public platforms where influence is easier to gain.
- gamblor956 9y agoPhotoshopped heads of celebrities on porn actors' bodies have been around for some time now and isn't, to my knowledge, illegal They have been, since inception, illegal, in the sense that they represent a tortious act. They might be illegal in the criminal sense, depending on the jurisdiction, even in the US if absent meaningful context bringing the fake under the protection of the First Amendment as a form of speech.
- petepete 9y agoThese bannings and the process making the news will definitely have the Streisand effect. The community might move on from Reddit but so many people have been made aware of the possibilities that it's impossible to keep a lid on it.
- irrational 9y agoSo, subreddits that do "safe for work" deepfakes are still around and allowed. This tells me that the technology will just get better and better and the use for it to create NSFW deepfakes will likewise get better and better (while existing underground?) until it really is impossible even for an expert to tell that they are fakes. That is what I assume will happen anyway.
- earenndil 9y ago> until it really is impossible even for an expert to tell that they are fakes I hope that happens, and as soon as possible. Otherwise, there will be an 'uncanny valley' period of sorts, where people are able to mass-produce this video, but not everyone is aware that it exists. When it really is flawless, or close enough to, societal change will begin. This will also mean that video evidence will likely no longer hold in court (which is good because it was already possible to fudge manually with videoediting tools).
- feelandcoffee 9y agoWhat's scare me the most it's not the porn. But the fact that make this kind of tech it's kinda-avaliable to anyone with a GPU and a few hours of learning and training. The only thing that make this not a treat to your regular folk it's the fact that needs a lot of images references to make the model, but imagine a politician or activist, they have a lot of images on the net; So this can take the fake news to another level. Yeah if this happens the news media and legal system, will probably not take shady videos seriously without verification (specially now, that the algorithm it's still is in the middle of the uncanny valley, so for the moment it's easy to recognize without experts need). But think about your friend, uncle or cousin that shares his "echo chamber" posts on facebook? Or who knows, maybe I should't binge black mirror, and this only gets limited to porn and good uses. Like a new era for stunts in movies.
- dkersten 9y ago> if this happens the news media ... will probably not take shady videos seriously without verification Because mainstream media is great at fact checking all the bullshit they report on? Some do, sure, but there is a lot of shit on mainstream news.
- mentos 9y agoI think 'Deepfake' is a great name for an episode of Black Mirror.
- fellellor 9y agoSo glad that they banned this crap. This is actually a fun project to get started with deep learning as you paste Nicholas Cage in every movie you can imagine. Unfortunately it's been dominated by all this porn creepiness. Hopefully the discussion sorrounding this will get friendlier from now on.
- aznvr 9y agoIt seems to have gone unnoticed, but since a week or so Github requires sign-in for the deepfakes repos (https://github.com/deepfakes https://github.com/deepfakes). Note that these are public repositories.