3 ms·

I 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 fan

by js8 3y ago

I 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.

Hizonner 3y ago
Get a normal, fully-clothed, completely SFW, maybe face-only shot of your target. Paste it into facial-image-similarity search engine that also supports constraining the output using text, and make the text "hardcore blah blah blah". If, as you assume, there are in fact hardcore blah blah blah images out there that look like they're of the target, the image search will find them. A search engine that does something like that doesn't seem too hard to build and will probably come along sometime... especially if the availability of images that you can't search for by pure text has created demand. In fact, it doesn't seem too farfetched for somebody to build a purely text-prompted image searcher that can accept "looks like $target" as part of the search string, and have it go find a picture of the face, then combine that with the rest of the query text. Again, if the images are out there, it'll find them. Not only do the images being out there create demand for the search system, but the search system then creates demand for people to compete in producing and publishing the "best" images. So you might very well find that the skill level for finding the images was even lower than the skill level for prompting them. And of course the shared images would automatically be visible to the target, as would a lot of link sharing and commmenting activity. Pretty much any publicly visible woman, and many publicly visible men, would end up being able to search for their own name and find a bunch of people sharing and talking about obvious fake images of them. Sharing the images really does have different consequences than just generating them, even if you don't put names on them. Also, I don't think there's any functional difference between allowing an image to be tagged as "Princess Leia" or "Hermione Granger" and allowing that image to be tagged as "Carrie Fisher" or "Emma Watson". That just means that the character name becomes a widely known, thinly veiled code for the actress name. I don't know what to do here, but I'm pretty convinced the particular line you want to draw doesn't make sense.
- js8 3y ago
  > In fact, it doesn't seem too farfetched for somebody to build a purely text-prompted image searcher that can accept "looks like $target" as part of the search string, and have it go find a picture of the face, then combine that with the rest of the query text. Again, if the images are out there, it'll find them. Then it's the search engine which makes/keeps and publishes the association between actress names and their images, and publishing that association would be illegal. In other words, the search engine should not make an inference, this image looks like a specific actress => this image is of this actress. > Also, I don't think there's any functional difference between allowing an image to be tagged as "Princess Leia" or "Hermione Granger" and allowing that image to be tagged as "Carrie Fisher" or "Emma Watson". That just means that the character name becomes a widely known, thinly veiled code for the actress name. I think there is a difference. People already understand that Lena Headey is not an actual IRL evil queen. Look at where the reputation risk comes from - it comes from the association with our real-world identities, not with those of their characters. Why should the actress care if her character is depicted doing something bad? Ultimately I think, the whole "reputation risk" is stupid, and humans should know better not to judge others based on some random image, and consequently, not to worry about being judged from some random image; that would really solve the problem. But perhaps it's too much to ask, so we have to draw the line somewhere.
  - Hizonner 3y ago
    > Then it's the search engine which makes/keeps and publishes the association between actress names and their images, and publishing that association would be illegal. In other words, the search engine should not make an inference, this image looks like a specific actress => this image is of this actress. Assuring that is technically difficult, error prone, and likely to interfere with legitimate functions of the search engine (assuming you think that search-by-face has any legitimate functions). One of the signs of being on the wrong track in policy is that you find yourself having to go after more and more people and forbid more and more things. > Look at where the reputation risk comes from This. Is. Not. About. Reputation. Not for major celebrities. Not in any way, shape, or form. If you posted a deepfake of some major actress that was any more pornographic than some casual wardrobe malfunction, put her name on it, and claimed it was real, still effectively nobody would believe it was real (unless she had actually made it, in which case she or her publicists would make really sure that was known). Unless she was really unusually dumb, she would know that effectively nobody believed it was real. And yet she might very well feel harmed by it. And for that matter she might be actually seen in a different light by people who were 100 percent certain it wasn't her and she had nothing to do with it. Claiming it's a deepfake of "her character" doesn't change the fact that it is equally a deepfake of her. It's an image. There is nothing interesting about it other than its appearance. And it appears to be her just as much as it appears to be the character. It's true that reputation risk comes into it for "normal" people, but everybody knows that there are going to be tons of fakes of celebrities.

by js8 3y ago

Hizonner 3y ago

Get a normal, fully-clothed, completely SFW, maybe face-only shot of your target. Paste it into facial-image-similarity search engine that also supports constraining the output using text, and make the text "hardcore blah blah blah". If, as you assume, there are in fact hardcore blah blah blah images out there that look like they're of the target, the image search will find them. A search engine that does something like that doesn't seem too hard to build and will probably come along sometime... especially if the availability of images that you can't search for by pure text has created demand. In fact, it doesn't seem too farfetched for somebody to build a purely text-prompted image searcher that can accept "looks like $target" as part of the search string, and have it go find a picture of the face, then combine that with the rest of the query text. Again, if the images are out there, it'll find them. Not only do the images being out there create demand for the search system, but the search system then creates demand for people to compete in producing and publishing the "best" images. So you might very well find that the skill level for finding the images was even lower than the skill level for prompting them. And of course the shared images would automatically be visible to the target, as would a lot of link sharing and commmenting activity. Pretty much any publicly visible woman, and many publicly visible men, would end up being able to search for their own name and find a bunch of people sharing and talking about obvious fake images of them. Sharing the images really does have different consequences than just generating them, even if you don't put names on them. Also, I don't think there's any functional difference between allowing an image to be tagged as "Princess Leia" or "Hermione Granger" and allowing that image to be tagged as "Carrie Fisher" or "Emma Watson". That just means that the character name becomes a widely known, thinly veiled code for the actress name. I don't know what to do here, but I'm pretty convinced the particular line you want to draw doesn't make sense.

js8 3y ago
> In fact, it doesn't seem too farfetched for somebody to build a purely text-prompted image searcher that can accept "looks like $target" as part of the search string, and have it go find a picture of the face, then combine that with the rest of the query text. Again, if the images are out there, it'll find them. Then it's the search engine which makes/keeps and publishes the association between actress names and their images, and publishing that association would be illegal. In other words, the search engine should not make an inference, this image looks like a specific actress => this image is of this actress. > Also, I don't think there's any functional difference between allowing an image to be tagged as "Princess Leia" or "Hermione Granger" and allowing that image to be tagged as "Carrie Fisher" or "Emma Watson". That just means that the character name becomes a widely known, thinly veiled code for the actress name. I think there is a difference. People already understand that Lena Headey is not an actual IRL evil queen. Look at where the reputation risk comes from - it comes from the association with our real-world identities, not with those of their characters. Why should the actress care if her character is depicted doing something bad? Ultimately I think, the whole "reputation risk" is stupid, and humans should know better not to judge others based on some random image, and consequently, not to worry about being judged from some random image; that would really solve the problem. But perhaps it's too much to ask, so we have to draw the line somewhere.
- Hizonner 3y ago
  > Then it's the search engine which makes/keeps and publishes the association between actress names and their images, and publishing that association would be illegal. In other words, the search engine should not make an inference, this image looks like a specific actress => this image is of this actress. Assuring that is technically difficult, error prone, and likely to interfere with legitimate functions of the search engine (assuming you think that search-by-face has any legitimate functions). One of the signs of being on the wrong track in policy is that you find yourself having to go after more and more people and forbid more and more things. > Look at where the reputation risk comes from This. Is. Not. About. Reputation. Not for major celebrities. Not in any way, shape, or form. If you posted a deepfake of some major actress that was any more pornographic than some casual wardrobe malfunction, put her name on it, and claimed it was real, still effectively nobody would believe it was real (unless she had actually made it, in which case she or her publicists would make really sure that was known). Unless she was really unusually dumb, she would know that effectively nobody believed it was real. And yet she might very well feel harmed by it. And for that matter she might be actually seen in a different light by people who were 100 percent certain it wasn't her and she had nothing to do with it. Claiming it's a deepfake of "her character" doesn't change the fact that it is equally a deepfake of her. It's an image. There is nothing interesting about it other than its appearance. And it appears to be her just as much as it appears to be the character. It's true that reputation risk comes into it for "normal" people, but everybody knows that there are going to be tons of fakes of celebrities.