6 ms·

I wonder/hope if a downstream effect of this technological change will be the end of the idea of a "shameful" or "humiliating" image. We all have bodies, we all

I wonder/hope if a downstream effect of this technological change will be the end of the idea of a "shameful" or "humiliating" image. We all have bodies, we all have sex, and I agree that soon images of ourselves being nude/having sex etc. will proliferate because they'll be generated instantly via Siri shortcut as part of casual banter. In a world where every celebrity is having sex with gorillas, doesn't such an image lose its charge? Will Norms and values around sex/body shaming change?

Fauntleroy 4y ago
If we get to the point where we can't tell AI generated images from reality, I'm not sure "body shaming" will be on society's collective radar anymore.
- ForrestN 4y ago
  Why?
  - TylerE 4y ago
    Much bigger fish to fry. Think things like forged evidence in trials.
    - telesilla 4y ago
      It's the right time to get into the digital forensics business.
      - 867-5309 4y ago
        ..and the Berlin gorilla nightscene
        mmmpop 4y ago
        I second this.
    - bwest87 4y ago
      Appropriately prioritizing problems has never really been society's strength...
      - mmmpop 4y ago
        That's because pesky things like "democracy" get in the way of getting shit done. Don't you think?
- geysersam 4y ago
  I bet someone said in 1830, "by the time we can send robots to Mars, body shaming will not be a thing anymore". For better and worse, that's not how we humans do things generally.
Swizec 4y ago
> In a world where every celebrity is having sex with gorillas, doesn't such an image lose its charge? Will Norms and values around sex/body shaming change? I hoped this would happen with social media. Everyone says stupid shit online and everyone has past beliefs they’ve outgrown. So what’s the big deal? Instead we went the opposite way. Everyone is super self conscious and censoring at all times because you never know who’s gonna take it out of context and make a big deal.
- seydor 4y ago
  This is not the same though, it's about being able to deny that that photo of you is real, not that it's taken out of context.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    Well what’s a “real” photo? If I take your photo and photoshop (very well) different surroundings. Is it a real photo if you? If I photoshop your face (very well) onto a different body. Is that real? If I feed your photos into a model that can create realistic versions of those photos in different poses or with different facial expressions. Is that real? They all start with something that is very definitely a real photo. You can’t (yet? ever?) generate a realistic photo of a specific person from a textual description. The machinery needs a source.
    - seydor 4y ago
      A real photo is one created by photons outside the camera
      - Swizec 4y ago
        You’ll be surprised to learn that doesn’t work without some amazing tech to process the photons. Different settings will produce a different photo. Hell, just changing focal length makes a bigg difference to what your face looks like: https://imgur.io/gallery/ZKTWi https://imgur.io/gallery/ZKTWi no digital manipulation required. Which of those faces is “real”? They’re all just recording photons hitting the camera, but look very different. It gets even worse when we start talking about colors. For example: it took cameras decades before they could accurately capture black faces. Where accurately means “an average person would say it looks right” https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias Edit: here's a fun example of how journalists use perspective and focal distance tricks to support their desired story angle. No digital manipulation https://twitter.com/baekdal/status/1254460167812415489 https://twitter.com/baekdal/status/1254460167812415489
tshaddox 4y ago
That seems unlikely, given that making up hurtful stories about people and transmitting them via text or voice is still a thing. Everyone knows that anyone can make up any story they want without any technology whatsoever, and yet spreading rumors is still a thing.
- seydor 4y ago
  Not really. I can't think of a recent "leaked texts" that the participants cannot not easily and plausibly deny (e.g. elon's supposed messages to gates), or even voice messages. Even most images can already be denied as photoshop if all the witnesses agree. The only medium that is somewhat hard to deny is videos, like sex tapes, but that's also not too hard. I think there will soon be a race to make deep learning pics look completely indistinguishable from phone pics.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    Perhaps that's somewhat true for famous people, although there are plenty of examples of false stories (without any forged evidence, literally just stories) causing real embarrassment and damage to reputation. But it's even more true for non-famous people getting bullied in their social groups, both online and offline, and that's more what I was responding to (the "asshole friends" in the original comment).
  - zone411 4y ago
    It'll be hard to deny crypto-signed photos https://petapixel.com/2022/08/08/sonys-forgery-proof-tech-adds-crypto-signature-to-photos-in-camera/ https://petapixel.com/2022/08/08/sonys-forgery-proof-tech-ad..., especially if they include metadata that distinguish photos of AI generated images from normal photos.
    - seydor 4y ago
      any camera can be hacked to plant an image in its framebuffer
      - 4y ago
BrainVirus 4y ago
>In a world where every celebrity is having sex with gorillas, doesn't such an image lose its charge? No, because the image itself doesn't matter. What matters is how much the public wants to hate someone. If t he public is primed, any remotely plausible incriminating image will do as an excuse. Fortunately, these images are actually far than what someone can cook up with Photoshop. Unfortunately, it's a part of a bigger trend where we get more and more tools to produce, manipulates and share information, while the tools to analyze and filter information are lagging by at least half a century.
jiggawatts 4y ago
Reminds me of the novel The Light of Other Days by Stephen Baxter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days I don't generally like his style, but this novel really captivated me. Without spoiling the plot (much), the end-result of everyone being able to spy on anyone anywhere at any time is a kind of societal disinhibition, especially related to sex, nudity, or similar taboos.
numpad0 4y ago
> doesn't such an image lose its charge? Yep! Individual images, and individuals in the first place, absolutely loses significance as supplies increase. > Will Norms and values around sex/body shaming change? The bar skyrockets! Look at TV stars from before 1995 - they should already appear below-average amateurs to modern eyes.

Fauntleroy 4y ago

If we get to the point where we can't tell AI generated images from reality, I'm not sure "body shaming" will be on society's collective radar anymore.

ForrestN 4y ago
Why?
- TylerE 4y ago
  Much bigger fish to fry. Think things like forged evidence in trials.
  - telesilla 4y ago
    It's the right time to get into the digital forensics business.
    - 867-5309 4y ago
      ..and the Berlin gorilla nightscene
      - mmmpop 4y ago
        I second this.
  - bwest87 4y ago
    Appropriately prioritizing problems has never really been society's strength...
    - mmmpop 4y ago
      That's because pesky things like "democracy" get in the way of getting shit done. Don't you think?
geysersam 4y ago
I bet someone said in 1830, "by the time we can send robots to Mars, body shaming will not be a thing anymore". For better and worse, that's not how we humans do things generally.

Swizec 4y ago

> In a world where every celebrity is having sex with gorillas, doesn't such an image lose its charge? Will Norms and values around sex/body shaming change? I hoped this would happen with social media. Everyone says stupid shit online and everyone has past beliefs they’ve outgrown. So what’s the big deal? Instead we went the opposite way. Everyone is super self conscious and censoring at all times because you never know who’s gonna take it out of context and make a big deal.

seydor 4y ago
This is not the same though, it's about being able to deny that that photo of you is real, not that it's taken out of context.
- Swizec 4y ago
  Well what’s a “real” photo? If I take your photo and photoshop (very well) different surroundings. Is it a real photo if you? If I photoshop your face (very well) onto a different body. Is that real? If I feed your photos into a model that can create realistic versions of those photos in different poses or with different facial expressions. Is that real? They all start with something that is very definitely a real photo. You can’t (yet? ever?) generate a realistic photo of a specific person from a textual description. The machinery needs a source.
  - seydor 4y ago
    A real photo is one created by photons outside the camera
    - Swizec 4y ago
      You’ll be surprised to learn that doesn’t work without some amazing tech to process the photons. Different settings will produce a different photo. Hell, just changing focal length makes a bigg difference to what your face looks like: https://imgur.io/gallery/ZKTWi https://imgur.io/gallery/ZKTWi no digital manipulation required. Which of those faces is “real”? They’re all just recording photons hitting the camera, but look very different. It gets even worse when we start talking about colors. For example: it took cameras decades before they could accurately capture black faces. Where accurately means “an average person would say it looks right” https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias https://www.vox.com/2015/9/18/9348821/photography-race-bias Edit: here's a fun example of how journalists use perspective and focal distance tricks to support their desired story angle. No digital manipulation https://twitter.com/baekdal/status/1254460167812415489 https://twitter.com/baekdal/status/1254460167812415489

tshaddox 4y ago

That seems unlikely, given that making up hurtful stories about people and transmitting them via text or voice is still a thing. Everyone knows that anyone can make up any story they want without any technology whatsoever, and yet spreading rumors is still a thing.

seydor 4y ago
Not really. I can't think of a recent "leaked texts" that the participants cannot not easily and plausibly deny (e.g. elon's supposed messages to gates), or even voice messages. Even most images can already be denied as photoshop if all the witnesses agree. The only medium that is somewhat hard to deny is videos, like sex tapes, but that's also not too hard. I think there will soon be a race to make deep learning pics look completely indistinguishable from phone pics.
- tshaddox 4y ago
  Perhaps that's somewhat true for famous people, although there are plenty of examples of false stories (without any forged evidence, literally just stories) causing real embarrassment and damage to reputation. But it's even more true for non-famous people getting bullied in their social groups, both online and offline, and that's more what I was responding to (the "asshole friends" in the original comment).
- zone411 4y ago
  It'll be hard to deny crypto-signed photos https://petapixel.com/2022/08/08/sonys-forgery-proof-tech-adds-crypto-signature-to-photos-in-camera/ https://petapixel.com/2022/08/08/sonys-forgery-proof-tech-ad..., especially if they include metadata that distinguish photos of AI generated images from normal photos.
  - seydor 4y ago
    any camera can be hacked to plant an image in its framebuffer
    - 4y ago

BrainVirus 4y ago

>In a world where every celebrity is having sex with gorillas, doesn't such an image lose its charge? No, because the image itself doesn't matter. What matters is how much the public wants to hate someone. If t he public is primed, any remotely plausible incriminating image will do as an excuse. Fortunately, these images are actually far than what someone can cook up with Photoshop. Unfortunately, it's a part of a bigger trend where we get more and more tools to produce, manipulates and share information, while the tools to analyze and filter information are lagging by at least half a century.

jiggawatts 4y ago

Reminds me of the novel The Light of Other Days by Stephen Baxter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days I don't generally like his style, but this novel really captivated me. Without spoiling the plot (much), the end-result of everyone being able to spy on anyone anywhere at any time is a kind of societal disinhibition, especially related to sex, nudity, or similar taboos.

numpad0 4y ago

> doesn't such an image lose its charge? Yep! Individual images, and individuals in the first place, absolutely loses significance as supplies increase. > Will Norms and values around sex/body shaming change? The bar skyrockets! Look at TV stars from before 1995 - they should already appear below-average amateurs to modern eyes.