6 ms·

I feel like a lot of the concerns around this are already covered by image and likeness restrictions. They exist for the exact same reason - people don't want t

by alexb_ 3y ago

I feel like a lot of the concerns around this are already covered by image and likeness restrictions. They exist for the exact same reason - people don't want their likeness associated with something they don't consent to. They don't want their image tarnished or false information being published. It's just that the modern internet has gotten us so used to completely disregarding this that people forgot it was something that affects others. I don't think local models should ever be restricted, in the same way I don't think our imaginations should be restricted. But when it comes to non-private use, sharing, selling, harassment, those are all bad for their own obvious reasons. It's a new problem, but AI is not to blame - bad people who want to stalk, harass, and completely disrespect others are the problem. Blame the human, not the tool. A tool which gives people new ways to harm others is not the tools fault, it's the person who's doing the harm's fault.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
matt-attack 3y ago
How is it a “new problem” when painting has existed for a 1000 years and photo-realistic painted had existed for at least 100. The idea that someone, be it a celebrity or a non-celebrity, should have a concern that someone might paint them without their consent is simply mind bogglingly ridiculous. As if anyone can have a say in what I choose to paint (I can paint in a photo realistic manner). If I want to paint Halle Berry having sex with Bill Cosby I may and no human on the planet should have a say in telling me I cannot. Not Halle, not Bill and not you. To imply that someone should be able to stop me from making any painting I wish is to subscribe to the most dystopian of world-views. And yes, my mind has been “trained” on various photos I’ve seen of Bill Cosby over my lifetime. He doesn’t somehow get to own my creative works just because I trained my mind on photos of him or tv shows. Replacing the paint brush with a piece of software I write is not going to change this logic.
- cvalka 3y ago
  [flagged]
- joker_minmax 3y ago
  Everyone can look at that and know it's a painting, not a real image. Most "photorealisfic" portraiture still looks visibly like a painting. Paintings can't move like a video can. The issue is misleading people with believable imagery. The issue is defamation. Apply it to yourself and your own image instead of Cosby.
  - cvalka 3y ago
    This can be dealt with mandatory disclosures enforced by law that the imagery is AI generated and not real. But this solution will not satisfy you, will it?
    - joker_minmax 3y ago
      So now you want the law further involved in pornography? Will fine print save someone's reputation like that? If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules.
      - nickthegreek 3y ago
        > If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules. Yes... and by making laws around the distribution or labeling of this content they can be sued. The argument that criminals don't follow the law, so there should be no law is really weak. I dont really see a problem with requiring AI porn of non consensual 3rd parties to be labeled as such at a MINIMUM. Some amount of regulation could be required and shouldn't be dismissed outright given the societal harm that could be caused.
    - creer 3y ago
      I could see artists voluntarily mentioning AI art in their captions. And on the forums I frequent, that's the current solution to keep the controversy down.
  - matt-attack 3y ago
    So once my paints get “too” good (I.e. indistinguishable from a photo) then all of a sudden my benign art has transformed into a violation of the law? Or is now “problematic”? Btw that’s how photorealistic paintings already are.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > How is it a “new problem” when painting has existed for a 1000 years and photo-realistic painted had existed for at least 100. The effort involved matters. Machine guns present societal challenges slingshots do not, despite them being essentially the same "throw an object at someone fast" technology.
  - creer 3y ago
    Effort is over-rated and with "mere" creativity and taste you can get very satisfying results by cutting and pasting fragments of magazines (or fragments of vanilla internet photos.) Halle and Bill included.
    - Arainach 3y ago
      Effort is the core of the problem, as it affects speed and access. Most of the tech industry is built on scaling things and expanding access by making them cheaper. A government could pay 500 people to watch 500 cameras and look for someone, but cheap cameras and cheap storage to save weeks of footage and AI facial recognition raise societal problems even though by your definition no new capabilities were created.
      - creer 3y ago
        Effort is the core of SOME problems - like you describe - and not the core of others. There is an audience for personality porn. It's probably a medium audience for "real photos and videos" smuggled or hacked out. It's probably a small audience for fan fic style. I doubt it will keep many artists fed, with generative AI or not. There is a tiny market for revenge porn - and it's already highly illegal. Does it change things that anyone can now create revenge porn out of the blue? Yes, a little - you still need someone to want to use revenge porn. Does it shake the foundation of our civilization? No. This is a problem that was raised at the beginning of anonymous remailers. Some people were very upset to be receiving death threats "enabled by that remailer" and seemed totally unconcerned that someone close to them was mad enough to send death threats. Talk about misplaced concern. There is a big market for high-bandwidth porn: videos and streams. And for now it seems to crave volume and freshness. Even then, for now that market seems to crave humanness, real actual performers - all the better if you can message them. So even there, not much threat - for now.
- cvalka 3y ago
  It's time for a new moral panic but this time by progressives and European liberals. Video games cause violence and other great hits.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    "Video games cause violence" is a classic conservative moral panic, usually wheeled out whenever there's been a mass shooting.
    - matt-attack 3y ago
      That's the point. The conservatives got up in arms about video game violence, but the left too can get over excited about similarly innocuous things in this case.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Actors can trademark their likeness and defamation is already a thing. If you try to sell art or photography of other people there is already settled law relating to that as well. AI just makes these disputes more common as the barrier to creating unauthorized works is lowered.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    This is an oversimplification. You absolutely can make and sell art depicting other people. Photographs in public, even if people are identifiable and don't consent to being photographed, can be sold [1]. Likewise, paintings depicting real people can be sold, even if the depict people in less than flattering scenarios, for example [2]. Defamation is a non-issue if people are transparent that it's a fictional work. Protections on one's image are actually quite narrow, mostly limited to advertisements and non-consensual photographs taken in private. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man_(painting) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man_(painting)
- impomura 3y ago
  I'm going to assume bad faith because the alternative would be to rude to you. If you wanted to paint a photorealistic halle berry having sex with whomevere you'd need years if not decades of art training. Or shelling a minimum of 500$ to commission an artist. Now I can have 25 different jpgs of that mental image in less than a hour of "work". And no you don't even have to write that piece of software, it's already online for free. If you don't see ho this is a new problem you should log off
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    How is it a problem worth solving? Any solution implies limiting what I use my own computer for. Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares. If people use fake pictures for libel that is already illegal.
    - Arainach 3y ago
      >Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares. You answered your own question. If generative AI means that no one trusts any evidence and calls everything fake, that's a huge societal problem. We've already seen a certain subset of the population claiming that since 2016 with disastrous results (how do you convince someone who dismisses all evidence out of hand?)
      - creer 3y ago
        This sub-thread confuses all kinds of issues. About not blindly trusting photos, that ship has sailed. The tools exist. Have existed long before generative AI. Are accessible. Do not require very much "talent". That's done. You can't blindly trust photos. When you get a photo or a few photos - be it in a scientific paper or a tabloid web site - you can ask yourself whether it makes sense. You can consider the context. Generative AI does not change that.
        Arainach 3y ago
        I strongly disagree. There is a huge difference between "photos can theoretically be faked, we need to consult an expert" and "everyone I know is using meme generators to post pictures of themselves in historical events, nothing is believable" in terms of societal trust.
pjc50 3y ago
I note that the Scottish law prohibiting non-consensual distribution of "intimate" images uses the phrasing "shows or appears to show". So sufficiently realistic fakes that might be taken for real might be illegal, although there has not yet been a test case.
EricMausler 3y ago
While I agree with keeping the focus of people problems on people, I do disagree with your statement on local models as written. If you write the model from scratch, and create all the data it is trained on yourself, then yes I agree it is like using your imagination. However, these models are trained on commercial resources to at least some degree - so even your local model is likely still a commercial product. I struggle to identify a meaningful metaphor to support my point, which I think is an interesting note on the kind of new territory we are in. But in essence, it feels to me like if you use a commercial model locally to generate content that is illegal to trade commercially then you've effectively just put illegal content in a box and opened it at home. You cannot claim that a box containing illegal content is just a box and send it through the mail. So I think it is in our best interest to play nice with this technology and not use it for questionable purposes or else the inevitable law that will need to be put in place is "it is illegal to trade or own AI models capable of GENERATING illegal content"
- pjc50 3y ago
  > So I think it is in our best interest to play nice with this technology and not use it for questionable purposes or else the inevitable law that will need to be put in place is "it is illegal to trade or own AI models capable of GENERATING illegal content" I think we all know how that one is going to go.
  - EricMausler 3y ago
    True But I think there is hope more in terms of what we publicly allow as opposed to what people actually do. As long as people cannot publicly assert that whatever they make with a local instance of an AI they downloaded is the same as just using their imagination, that would go a long way. They may do things they shouldn't anyway, and it may be completely unenforceable but at least we stop any compounding effects from happening in situations where it does come to light. Removes it from being plausible legal defenses as well. Otherwise the publicly available side of the tech is at risk of getting completely gimped
- dragonwriter 3y ago
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I feel like a lot of the concerns around this are already covered by image and likeness restrictions. Image and likeness restrictions are, in most cases in the US, commercial trade restrictions; some non-trade abuses might instead be covered by defamation, but there is a reason that states (and countries with sinilar basic legal systems to the US) have started adopting deepfake-specific laws, because they aren't well covered by existing laws in general.

by alexb_ 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

matt-attack 3y ago

How is it a “new problem” when painting has existed for a 1000 years and photo-realistic painted had existed for at least 100. The idea that someone, be it a celebrity or a non-celebrity, should have a concern that someone might paint them without their consent is simply mind bogglingly ridiculous. As if anyone can have a say in what I choose to paint (I can paint in a photo realistic manner). If I want to paint Halle Berry having sex with Bill Cosby I may and no human on the planet should have a say in telling me I cannot. Not Halle, not Bill and not you. To imply that someone should be able to stop me from making any painting I wish is to subscribe to the most dystopian of world-views. And yes, my mind has been “trained” on various photos I’ve seen of Bill Cosby over my lifetime. He doesn’t somehow get to own my creative works just because I trained my mind on photos of him or tv shows. Replacing the paint brush with a piece of software I write is not going to change this logic.

cvalka 3y ago
[flagged]
joker_minmax 3y ago
Everyone can look at that and know it's a painting, not a real image. Most "photorealisfic" portraiture still looks visibly like a painting. Paintings can't move like a video can. The issue is misleading people with believable imagery. The issue is defamation. Apply it to yourself and your own image instead of Cosby.
- cvalka 3y ago
  This can be dealt with mandatory disclosures enforced by law that the imagery is AI generated and not real. But this solution will not satisfy you, will it?
  - joker_minmax 3y ago
    So now you want the law further involved in pornography? Will fine print save someone's reputation like that? If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      > If people are distributing for malicious reasons, they aren't going to follow rules. Yes... and by making laws around the distribution or labeling of this content they can be sued. The argument that criminals don't follow the law, so there should be no law is really weak. I dont really see a problem with requiring AI porn of non consensual 3rd parties to be labeled as such at a MINIMUM. Some amount of regulation could be required and shouldn't be dismissed outright given the societal harm that could be caused.
  - creer 3y ago
    I could see artists voluntarily mentioning AI art in their captions. And on the forums I frequent, that's the current solution to keep the controversy down.
- matt-attack 3y ago
  So once my paints get “too” good (I.e. indistinguishable from a photo) then all of a sudden my benign art has transformed into a violation of the law? Or is now “problematic”? Btw that’s how photorealistic paintings already are.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> How is it a “new problem” when painting has existed for a 1000 years and photo-realistic painted had existed for at least 100. The effort involved matters. Machine guns present societal challenges slingshots do not, despite them being essentially the same "throw an object at someone fast" technology.
- creer 3y ago
  Effort is over-rated and with "mere" creativity and taste you can get very satisfying results by cutting and pasting fragments of magazines (or fragments of vanilla internet photos.) Halle and Bill included.
  - Arainach 3y ago
    Effort is the core of the problem, as it affects speed and access. Most of the tech industry is built on scaling things and expanding access by making them cheaper. A government could pay 500 people to watch 500 cameras and look for someone, but cheap cameras and cheap storage to save weeks of footage and AI facial recognition raise societal problems even though by your definition no new capabilities were created.
    - creer 3y ago
      Effort is the core of SOME problems - like you describe - and not the core of others. There is an audience for personality porn. It's probably a medium audience for "real photos and videos" smuggled or hacked out. It's probably a small audience for fan fic style. I doubt it will keep many artists fed, with generative AI or not. There is a tiny market for revenge porn - and it's already highly illegal. Does it change things that anyone can now create revenge porn out of the blue? Yes, a little - you still need someone to want to use revenge porn. Does it shake the foundation of our civilization? No. This is a problem that was raised at the beginning of anonymous remailers. Some people were very upset to be receiving death threats "enabled by that remailer" and seemed totally unconcerned that someone close to them was mad enough to send death threats. Talk about misplaced concern. There is a big market for high-bandwidth porn: videos and streams. And for now it seems to crave volume and freshness. Even then, for now that market seems to crave humanness, real actual performers - all the better if you can message them. So even there, not much threat - for now.
cvalka 3y ago
It's time for a new moral panic but this time by progressives and European liberals. Video games cause violence and other great hits.
- pjc50 3y ago
  "Video games cause violence" is a classic conservative moral panic, usually wheeled out whenever there's been a mass shooting.
  - matt-attack 3y ago
    That's the point. The conservatives got up in arms about video game violence, but the left too can get over excited about similarly innocuous things in this case.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
Actors can trademark their likeness and defamation is already a thing. If you try to sell art or photography of other people there is already settled law relating to that as well. AI just makes these disputes more common as the barrier to creating unauthorized works is lowered.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  This is an oversimplification. You absolutely can make and sell art depicting other people. Photographs in public, even if people are identifiable and don't consent to being photographed, can be sold [1]. Likewise, paintings depicting real people can be sold, even if the depict people in less than flattering scenarios, for example [2]. Defamation is a non-issue if people are transparent that it's a fictional work. Protections on one's image are actually quite narrow, mostly limited to advertisements and non-consensual photographs taken in private. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man_(painting) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forgotten_Man_(painting)
impomura 3y ago
I'm going to assume bad faith because the alternative would be to rude to you. If you wanted to paint a photorealistic halle berry having sex with whomevere you'd need years if not decades of art training. Or shelling a minimum of 500$ to commission an artist. Now I can have 25 different jpgs of that mental image in less than a hour of "work". And no you don't even have to write that piece of software, it's already online for free. If you don't see ho this is a new problem you should log off
- rightbyte 3y ago
  How is it a problem worth solving? Any solution implies limiting what I use my own computer for. Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares. If people use fake pictures for libel that is already illegal.
  - Arainach 3y ago
    >Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares. You answered your own question. If generative AI means that no one trusts any evidence and calls everything fake, that's a huge societal problem. We've already seen a certain subset of the population claiming that since 2016 with disastrous results (how do you convince someone who dismisses all evidence out of hand?)
    - creer 3y ago
      This sub-thread confuses all kinds of issues. About not blindly trusting photos, that ship has sailed. The tools exist. Have existed long before generative AI. Are accessible. Do not require very much "talent". That's done. You can't blindly trust photos. When you get a photo or a few photos - be it in a scientific paper or a tabloid web site - you can ask yourself whether it makes sense. You can consider the context. Generative AI does not change that.
      - Arainach 3y ago
        I strongly disagree. There is a huge difference between "photos can theoretically be faked, we need to consult an expert" and "everyone I know is using meme generators to post pictures of themselves in historical events, nothing is believable" in terms of societal trust.

pjc50 3y ago

I note that the Scottish law prohibiting non-consensual distribution of "intimate" images uses the phrasing "shows or appears to show". So sufficiently realistic fakes that might be taken for real might be illegal, although there has not yet been a test case.

EricMausler 3y ago

While I agree with keeping the focus of people problems on people, I do disagree with your statement on local models as written. If you write the model from scratch, and create all the data it is trained on yourself, then yes I agree it is like using your imagination. However, these models are trained on commercial resources to at least some degree - so even your local model is likely still a commercial product. I struggle to identify a meaningful metaphor to support my point, which I think is an interesting note on the kind of new territory we are in. But in essence, it feels to me like if you use a commercial model locally to generate content that is illegal to trade commercially then you've effectively just put illegal content in a box and opened it at home. You cannot claim that a box containing illegal content is just a box and send it through the mail. So I think it is in our best interest to play nice with this technology and not use it for questionable purposes or else the inevitable law that will need to be put in place is "it is illegal to trade or own AI models capable of GENERATING illegal content"

pjc50 3y ago
> So I think it is in our best interest to play nice with this technology and not use it for questionable purposes or else the inevitable law that will need to be put in place is "it is illegal to trade or own AI models capable of GENERATING illegal content" I think we all know how that one is going to go.
- EricMausler 3y ago
  True But I think there is hope more in terms of what we publicly allow as opposed to what people actually do. As long as people cannot publicly assert that whatever they make with a local instance of an AI they downloaded is the same as just using their imagination, that would go a long way. They may do things they shouldn't anyway, and it may be completely unenforceable but at least we stop any compounding effects from happening in situations where it does come to light. Removes it from being plausible legal defenses as well. Otherwise the publicly available side of the tech is at risk of getting completely gimped
dragonwriter 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I feel like a lot of the concerns around this are already covered by image and likeness restrictions. Image and likeness restrictions are, in most cases in the US, commercial trade restrictions; some non-trade abuses might instead be covered by defamation, but there is a reason that states (and countries with sinilar basic legal systems to the US) have started adopting deepfake-specific laws, because they aren't well covered by existing laws in general.