2 ms·
If you read the article, the headline is a confused mess. He was putting other kid's faces on existing child porn using common face swap software, and distribu
by DiabloD3 4y ago
If you read the article, the headline is a confused mess.
He was putting other kid's faces on existing child porn using common face swap software, and distributed the modified stuff as if it was real, including details of the kids who the faces come from.
So, hes a pedophile who engaged in harming children within the definition of the law, not some guy who produced whole-cloth fictional victimless works using some sort of GPT model (ie, things we actually call AI; we do not call face swapping software AI).
- 1letterunixname 4y agoEffectively "revenge porn"/deep fakes of actual children. That's gross and humiliating because there's a real victim to point to. There are monsters in the world, no doubt. Although, I'm apprehensive at the thought for the potential of this sort of underground taboo material to include generative AI creating fully synthetic biographies, videos, social media trails, chat bots, video conferences and such that appear real enough to pass Turing tests. In realpolitik terms, it may be a relief in disguise if it meant less targeting of real human beings. I'm also wondering if the 4chan types, terrorists, and violent sociopaths will use generative technologies to simulate scenes and events they wish to transpire. If so, then where does one draw the line between that and say shoot 'em up games? Do their so-called fictional plans and expressions become crimes? (Sigh. It's confusing, uneasy, and brain-breaking.)