5 ms·
I think this is inevitable and the best we can do, as a society, is to forbid publishing images together with personal identification (like actress name) withou
by js8 3y ago
I think this is inevitable and the best we can do, as a society, is to forbid publishing images together with personal identification (like actress name) without their consent.
As they explain, almost anybody can combine the two images using AI in their own home. I think that's not very different from privately fantasizing about a famous actress. I think it would be too privacy intrusive for society to try to prevent that.
The real harm seems to come from publishing, and making the connection (i.e. claim that this image that looks like this actress is in fact, image of this actress), so the image can be found under their name. That's where I think we should draw a line.
- planede 3y agoFace and possibly other body features are already enough for personal identification. I mean if a nude with Emma Watson's face is generated then adding Emma Watson's name to make the connection is already redundant. Anybody can recognize her face.
- chii 3y agoi think they meant fraudulent attribution rather than identification. For example, claiming such a nude emma watson photo is real means they are fraudulently misrepresenting her and thus, could tarnish her reputation etc.
- planede 3y agoYeah, but even for fraudulent attribution it would be enough to state that the image is real, without spelling out the name. On the flip side spelling out "fake Emma Watson AI nude" wouldn't be fraudulent attribution. edit: But it looks like the js8 takes issue with the image being findable under the name as well, not necessarily with false attribution.
- chii 3y agoWhich is why fake Emma Watson images should not be illegal, as long as there's clear labeling (may be a requirement for watermarking for more permanence).
- danielvaughn 3y agoI believe we have “likeness” laws in the US that (in theory) should cover this. Though I haven’t looked into it - anyone know if I’m wrong or not?
- js8 3y agoNot really, because you cannot efficiently search by face and body features. IMHO publishing an image that looks like a famous actress, without indicating which actress it is, should be allowed. Sure, perhaps somebody could do an image search, but that's already more complicated process than synthesize your own fantasy. There are other edge cases, for example, should an image of "Princess Leia" be allowed to be shared under that title, when it implies the resemblance to the actress? I think the answer is probably yes, like with the body features, character name is not enough to identify a person. But it would not be allowed to mention Carrie Fisher in conjuction with such a picture, even by a 3rd party reposting the image. Edit: Maybe anybody can recognize Emma Watson (myself, I am not sure, not HP fan), but the issue is how you then use any human image generator without potentially infringing some random actress (effectively banning them)? There are definitely facial features I like and I cannot discern that I like them because I saw them in some actress whose name I have long since forgotten. The actresses tend to have wide variety of appearances, and there is not that many faces. It's gonna be a very contested rule. That's why I think it would be much easier to simply go after the name connection with the actress, rather than facial or bodily features.
- pjc50 3y ago> you cannot efficiently search by face and body features Yet. That feels like something an LLM trained on lots of images would be good at. It's also the basis of biometric identification. (Heck, google lens will give you celebrity identification about 10% of the time even though it's not designed for that. The Bing image search will try to identify the clothing and handbag in the photo instead so it can sell them to you)
- js8 3y agoI think I addressed that in the next sentence. Doing an image search using a real image and deciding whether the fake image you find is good enough for your fantasy is already more complicated process than getting two images (one of your fantasy and the real one with the actress) and having AI synthesize them together. Or maybe you need to be more specific how do you imagine people would use the technology.
- amelius 3y ago> I mean if a nude with Emma Watson's face is generated then adding Emma Watson's name to make the connection is already redundant. Anybody can recognize her face. Sadly, they'll probably just prefix her last name with a "T" ...
- dr-detroit 3y ago[dead]
- chii 3y ago> That's where I think we should draw a line. i think it has always been an offense to use someone's likeness fraudulently. But the issue has always been enforcement. Quite difficult to catch people responsible. An overly draconian net impairs freedom on the net, but a loose net means there will be many trolls like that.
- amelius 3y ago> the best we can do, as a society, is to forbid publishing images together with personal identification We can do more, like leverage AI to hunt down abuses of images. But this will probably only happen if there is a bounty on such abuses. We could have AI-backed law firms making money out of this.
- V1ndaar 3y agoOh now _that_ clearly sounds like a nice future to live in. Surely those would only do it for the greater good! /s
- bloak 3y agoYou seem to be mixing two things there, or it's unclear what you mean. It's possible to mention someone by name and arrange for the image to be found under their name without claiming that the image is really of that person. For example, something that people have been doing for a long time, I think, is finding a porn actress who looks like Famous Person, adjusting their hairstyle and make-up to enhance the resemblance (in extreme cases including cosmetic surgery), and then advertising the pictures as "Famous Person Lookalike does XYZ". The client knows exactly what they're getting and there is no libel of the famous person. Would you want to make that illegal, or just the cases that are perhaps already covered by libel law and the Trade Descriptions Act?
- js8 3y agoYes, I think the "famous person lookalike" loophole should be illegal for generated images. All generated images are lookalikes, by definition. Also no tricks like "this is not a pipe". But I think we have to allow lookalikes that do not claim to be a specific lookalike, otherwise using human image generators is going to be too complicated legally, and I don't want to ban them.
- Hizonner 3y ago> The real harm seems to come from publishing, and making the connection (i.e. claim that this image that looks like this actress is in fact, image of this actress), so the image can be found under their name. That's where I think we should draw a line. Does it have to be publication? Suppose somebody creates a picture of actress X doing something she'd never do, with somebody she'd never do it with, in circumstances that she finds degrading, and, heck, let's say with "pig whore" painted on her... and privately emails it to her. "Thought you'd like this picture.". No publication, just a private message. No caption on the picture, nothing like that; it's just her mind that makes the connection. No defamation; obviously she's not going to believe it actually happened and obviously the sender doesn't expect her to. It might be hard to do that particular examples without it coming off as a threat, but even if it were clearly not a threat, I don't think most targets would be very thrilled about it. It's not just publication.