7 ms·

More precisely, she wants the distribution of nudes without consent, real or faked, to be considered an offense. This isn't about the tool, but what's being don

More precisely, she wants the distribution of nudes without consent, real or faked, to be considered an offense. This isn't about the tool, but what's being done with it.

jsnell 5y ago
That doesn't seem like an accurate summary. The actual quotes address the generation of those images, not just the distribution: > "Parliament needs to have the opportunity to debate whether nude and sexually explicit images generated digitally without consent should be outlawed, and I believe if this were to happen the law would change." And it's about restricting the tools, not just what's done with them: > "If software providers develop this technology, they are complicit in a very serious crime and should be required to design their products to stop this happening."
- read_if_gay_ 5y ago
  > should be required to design their products to stop this happening. How? How are you going to stop people from sharing images of what your software produced? There might be more context to this quote but is insane how out of touch lawmakers often appear to be with respect to technology. Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns which completely nullify the idea behind them. How do we create working legislation for technology?
  - tester34 5y ago
    Store who, where and what kind of image has generated with your tool and attach metadata to file like EXIF I guess?
    - laurowyn 5y ago
      So just delete the exif data, and we're back to square one.
  - howaboutnope 5y ago
    > Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns That's thanks to webmasters who want to track visitors on the first visit, instead, of, say, having an opt-in link somewhere in the footer. It's amazing how much FUD is spread about the GDPR, and it's ironic in context of accusing lawmakers of cluelessnes, who in this case demonstrated more clue than millions of people apparently have about their own job.
    - read_if_gay_ 5y ago
      Cookie banners are utterly ineffective. The websites create the problem in the first place, that's obvious, but lawmakers are apparently too incompetent to come up with effective solutions.
- mattashii 5y ago
  > ... sexually explicit images generated digitally without consent should be outlawed ... So, if I were to run DeepSukebe on an analog AI chip the generated pictures would be totally fine to distribute? It seems to me that this should instead be 'images generated without consent'; that is, without specifying how this can be generated.
  - jimktrains2 5y ago
    Digitally is/has become synonymous with "on a computer" or "algorithmically" because we do not have any non-digital computers to which we refer to as computers.
    - mattashii 5y ago
      Yes, but it shouldn't matter whether I make pictures of others on my PC or by hand if the other didn't consent to me making those pictures. Regardless of the type of picture.
- laurowyn 5y ago
  >> "If software providers develop this technology, they are complicit in a very serious crime and should be required to design their products to stop this happening." so we should outlaw any piece of technology that can be misused? This is what happens when technologically inept people make laws to regulate technology. By this standard, cameras should be outlawed in case they're used to take sexually explicit pictures without consent. Computers should be outlawed in case they're used to distribute anything illicit. Outlawing the production (by any means) and/or distribution (by any means) of non-consensual, sexually explicit material should be enough. If someone can show evidence that someone has produced to shared such content, then that's enough to demonstrate the offence. No need to go stopping the rest of us from using technology just because some disgusting excuse for a human decided to demonstrate some of the worst of humanity with said technology.
  - dralley 5y ago
    I don't think this applies. Cameras are general tools that have many useful purposes. So are computers. This is specifically an AI tool that creates fake nudes. Whatever useful, appropriate purposes for this tool (if any) exist - they pale in comparison to your examples.
    - laurowyn 5y ago
      The quote was about the technology in general, not the specific application. The technology has plenty of applications in CGI and trying to push through the uncanny valley. By no means am I claiming that a tool designed to generate sexually explicit material without consent is an appropriate use. But the fact is, technology is used and abused every day without having such huge sanctions put on it. What makes this any different? the fact it's new. But it's not a new trend by any means. 20 years ago, 'x-raying' was a thing. Photoshop someone to look like their clothes are transparent. Or the bubbles effect, using circles cut out of a mask layer to hide clothing to make the image look like a nude without showing anything explicit. The fact is outlawing technology just means something new will turn up to replace the old. Whereas making the end product illegal to possess and/or distribute gives a far more beneficial power to law enforcement and the legal system. "I'm sorry officer, these were generated using a different tool, so they're actually legal" or "you can't prove what tool was used to create them" would be perfectly viable defences if the tool is outlawed, vs the act itself.
xibalba 5y ago
This is an important difference, and, for me at least, the difference between disagreeing (“ban the tool”) and agreeing (“make non-consensual nude distribution illegal”) with the proposal. It’s a shame the headline communicates the former when it seems the proposal is the latter.
- st_goliath 5y ago
  > It’s a shame the headline communicates the former when it seems the proposal is the latter. Because a headline blubbing about AI-X-ray-specs grabs attention. Making people more likely to click the link. You can see the effect in action right here: the link made it to the top of the front page in less than an hour of being submitted. Besides that tough, the article does contain the typical misunderstanding of politicians about how software works ("software developers should be forced make $SOFTWARE so that it can't do $MY_SPECIAL_EXCEPTION_CASE"), which is problematic per se, unrelated to any machine learning aspect.
buro9 5y ago
Taking this to an extreme: If an image is 100% generated and looks to be a nude of a human, from whom should consent be obtained? Especially if "this image is similar to me" is factored in, what degree of similarity makes an image a representation of a real person? We're not far from this being less about privacy and dignity, and being more about whether the idea of nudity is permitted.
- Joker_vD 5y ago
  From the person who appears to be depicted on it. Not that different from an image being a picture painted by an artist from memory/imagination, honestly. In the end, it basically boils down to having the rights on your appearance.
  - buro9 5y ago
    Yes, but similarity is not uniquely owned... 2 people may have resemblance and one may have given consent. Does the other have a right to demand consent too? Hypothetical example: A person who happens to look like Boris Johnson (PM of UK) consents to a nude depiction. Does the image require the consent of all other people who have resemblance to Boris Johnson, including Boris Johnson but also extending to people elsewhere on Earth that don't know him but definitely look like him? If yes... then you have lost control of right on your appearance because now the rights are collectively owned by anyone with a resemblance.
    - rlpb 5y ago
      Identical twins might be another example. What happens if one twin wants to make money selling adult content, and the other twin does not consent?
  - eru 5y ago
    There are lot of look-alikes in the real world. I wonder whether saying that you based your nude on Joe Smith who you got consent from, would count as a defense? Even if Joe Smith happens to look like some celebrity that you didn't get permission from.
pjc50 5y ago
Note that this is already an offense in Scotland. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/section/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/section/2 > A person (“A”) commits an offense if— > (a)A discloses, or threatens to disclose, a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, another person (“B”) in an intimate situation, > (b)by doing so, A intends to cause B fear, alarm or distress or A is reckless as to whether B will be caused fear, alarm or distress, and > (c)the photograph or film has not previously been disclosed to the public at large, or any section of the public, by B or with B's consent (my highlighting: "appears to show" would cover realistic fakes).
- oliwarner 5y ago
  Does an AI generated image fall under their definition of a photograph?
  - pjc50 5y ago
    A definition of photograph is not provided in the text of the act, but I would guess "appears to show" covers this. There will probably have to be a test case. That is, if it looks like or is claimed to be a photograph it's covered.
    - oliwarner 5y ago
      A real, light-capture photograph can be of an innocent situation appears compromising. Angles, hidden partitions, even a hand temporarily over the wrong place. The "appears to show" applies to the act captured, not the medium, AFAICS.
  - oliwarner 5y ago
    Other laws explicitly define pseudo-photographs (eg: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/7 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/7) so I would suggest that this law does not include photo-realistic computer-generated images.

More precisely, she wants the distribution of nudes without consent, real or faked, to be considered an offense. This isn't about the tool, but what's being done with it.

jsnell 5y ago

That doesn't seem like an accurate summary. The actual quotes address the generation of those images, not just the distribution: > "Parliament needs to have the opportunity to debate whether nude and sexually explicit images generated digitally without consent should be outlawed, and I believe if this were to happen the law would change." And it's about restricting the tools, not just what's done with them: > "If software providers develop this technology, they are complicit in a very serious crime and should be required to design their products to stop this happening."

read_if_gay_ 5y ago
> should be required to design their products to stop this happening. How? How are you going to stop people from sharing images of what your software produced? There might be more context to this quote but is insane how out of touch lawmakers often appear to be with respect to technology. Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns which completely nullify the idea behind them. How do we create working legislation for technology?
- tester34 5y ago
  Store who, where and what kind of image has generated with your tool and attach metadata to file like EXIF I guess?
  - laurowyn 5y ago
    So just delete the exif data, and we're back to square one.
- howaboutnope 5y ago
  > Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns That's thanks to webmasters who want to track visitors on the first visit, instead, of, say, having an opt-in link somewhere in the footer. It's amazing how much FUD is spread about the GDPR, and it's ironic in context of accusing lawmakers of cluelessnes, who in this case demonstrated more clue than millions of people apparently have about their own job.
  - read_if_gay_ 5y ago
    Cookie banners are utterly ineffective. The websites create the problem in the first place, that's obvious, but lawmakers are apparently too incompetent to come up with effective solutions.
mattashii 5y ago
> ... sexually explicit images generated digitally without consent should be outlawed ... So, if I were to run DeepSukebe on an analog AI chip the generated pictures would be totally fine to distribute? It seems to me that this should instead be 'images generated without consent'; that is, without specifying how this can be generated.
- jimktrains2 5y ago
  Digitally is/has become synonymous with "on a computer" or "algorithmically" because we do not have any non-digital computers to which we refer to as computers.
  - mattashii 5y ago
    Yes, but it shouldn't matter whether I make pictures of others on my PC or by hand if the other didn't consent to me making those pictures. Regardless of the type of picture.
laurowyn 5y ago
>> "If software providers develop this technology, they are complicit in a very serious crime and should be required to design their products to stop this happening." so we should outlaw any piece of technology that can be misused? This is what happens when technologically inept people make laws to regulate technology. By this standard, cameras should be outlawed in case they're used to take sexually explicit pictures without consent. Computers should be outlawed in case they're used to distribute anything illicit. Outlawing the production (by any means) and/or distribution (by any means) of non-consensual, sexually explicit material should be enough. If someone can show evidence that someone has produced to shared such content, then that's enough to demonstrate the offence. No need to go stopping the rest of us from using technology just because some disgusting excuse for a human decided to demonstrate some of the worst of humanity with said technology.
- dralley 5y ago
  I don't think this applies. Cameras are general tools that have many useful purposes. So are computers. This is specifically an AI tool that creates fake nudes. Whatever useful, appropriate purposes for this tool (if any) exist - they pale in comparison to your examples.
  - laurowyn 5y ago
    The quote was about the technology in general, not the specific application. The technology has plenty of applications in CGI and trying to push through the uncanny valley. By no means am I claiming that a tool designed to generate sexually explicit material without consent is an appropriate use. But the fact is, technology is used and abused every day without having such huge sanctions put on it. What makes this any different? the fact it's new. But it's not a new trend by any means. 20 years ago, 'x-raying' was a thing. Photoshop someone to look like their clothes are transparent. Or the bubbles effect, using circles cut out of a mask layer to hide clothing to make the image look like a nude without showing anything explicit. The fact is outlawing technology just means something new will turn up to replace the old. Whereas making the end product illegal to possess and/or distribute gives a far more beneficial power to law enforcement and the legal system. "I'm sorry officer, these were generated using a different tool, so they're actually legal" or "you can't prove what tool was used to create them" would be perfectly viable defences if the tool is outlawed, vs the act itself.

xibalba 5y ago

This is an important difference, and, for me at least, the difference between disagreeing (“ban the tool”) and agreeing (“make non-consensual nude distribution illegal”) with the proposal. It’s a shame the headline communicates the former when it seems the proposal is the latter.

st_goliath 5y ago
> It’s a shame the headline communicates the former when it seems the proposal is the latter. Because a headline blubbing about AI-X-ray-specs grabs attention. Making people more likely to click the link. You can see the effect in action right here: the link made it to the top of the front page in less than an hour of being submitted. Besides that tough, the article does contain the typical misunderstanding of politicians about how software works ("software developers should be forced make $SOFTWARE so that it can't do $MY_SPECIAL_EXCEPTION_CASE"), which is problematic per se, unrelated to any machine learning aspect.

buro9 5y ago

Taking this to an extreme: If an image is 100% generated and looks to be a nude of a human, from whom should consent be obtained? Especially if "this image is similar to me" is factored in, what degree of similarity makes an image a representation of a real person? We're not far from this being less about privacy and dignity, and being more about whether the idea of nudity is permitted.

Joker_vD 5y ago
From the person who appears to be depicted on it. Not that different from an image being a picture painted by an artist from memory/imagination, honestly. In the end, it basically boils down to having the rights on your appearance.
- buro9 5y ago
  Yes, but similarity is not uniquely owned... 2 people may have resemblance and one may have given consent. Does the other have a right to demand consent too? Hypothetical example: A person who happens to look like Boris Johnson (PM of UK) consents to a nude depiction. Does the image require the consent of all other people who have resemblance to Boris Johnson, including Boris Johnson but also extending to people elsewhere on Earth that don't know him but definitely look like him? If yes... then you have lost control of right on your appearance because now the rights are collectively owned by anyone with a resemblance.
  - rlpb 5y ago
    Identical twins might be another example. What happens if one twin wants to make money selling adult content, and the other twin does not consent?
- eru 5y ago
  There are lot of look-alikes in the real world. I wonder whether saying that you based your nude on Joe Smith who you got consent from, would count as a defense? Even if Joe Smith happens to look like some celebrity that you didn't get permission from.

pjc50 5y ago

Note that this is already an offense in Scotland. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/section/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/section/2 > A person (“A”) commits an offense if— > (a)A discloses, or threatens to disclose, a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show, another person (“B”) in an intimate situation, > (b)by doing so, A intends to cause B fear, alarm or distress or A is reckless as to whether B will be caused fear, alarm or distress, and > (c)the photograph or film has not previously been disclosed to the public at large, or any section of the public, by B or with B's consent (my highlighting: "appears to show" would cover realistic fakes).

oliwarner 5y ago
Does an AI generated image fall under their definition of a photograph?
- pjc50 5y ago
  A definition of photograph is not provided in the text of the act, but I would guess "appears to show" covers this. There will probably have to be a test case. That is, if it looks like or is claimed to be a photograph it's covered.
  - oliwarner 5y ago
    A real, light-capture photograph can be of an innocent situation appears compromising. Angles, hidden partitions, even a hand temporarily over the wrong place. The "appears to show" applies to the act captured, not the medium, AFAICS.
- oliwarner 5y ago
  Other laws explicitly define pseudo-photographs (eg: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/7 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/7) so I would suggest that this law does not include photo-realistic computer-generated images.