7 ms·

Maybe just be less prudent about nudity in general. And deny kids access to AI image generation. Problem solved.

by guardian5x 3y ago

NegativeK 3y ago
How do you deal with nonconsensual generation of images of real people in sexual acts, including children?
- Bognar 3y ago
  How do you deal with the same in Photoshop?
  - tivert 3y ago
    >> How do you deal with nonconsensual generation of images of real people in sexual acts, including children? > How do you deal with the same in Photoshop? You're making a false equivalence. "AI" image generation is so much easier to do and requires so much less skill than Photoshopping something that you're really dealing with an entirely different problem.
    - shlubbert 3y ago
      It's sad that people seem to be consistently incapable of understanding this nuance; same with the "but humans also learn by studying existing work!" argument that always come up when discussing the ethics of training and datasets.
      - dale_glass 3y ago
        The difference of nuance vs Photoshop is completely unclear. Back in 2005 or so, kuro5hin (a now gone discussion site) closed signups because somebody photoshopped the founder's wife's head onto some porn. That was 18 years ago. True, doing it with Photoshop took a bit of skill, but it is a skill a lot of people have, for whom it would be doable in minutes. For a newbie, figuring out Stable Diffusion is probably more work than figuring out how to do it in Photoshop. And IMO the training argument is long term a pointless waste of time.
        tivert 3y ago
        > The difference of nuance vs Photoshop is completely unclear. It's perfectly clear if you realize similar is not same. > Back in 2005 or so, kuro5hin (a now gone discussion site) closed signups because somebody photoshopped the founder's wife's head onto some porn. That was 18 years ago. So what? Everyone here understands that's possible. If you think that example somehow addresses the concern, you missed the point. > True, doing it with Photoshop took a bit of skill, but it is a skill a lot of people have, for whom it would be doable in minutes. Also, IIRC, that particular Photoshop of Rusty's wife was terrible, as in obvious. The skill "a lot of people have" is to make bad photoshops. Generative AI has the ability to near-effortlessly make high-resolution ones that most people could confuse for a real photo. > For a newbie, figuring out Stable Diffusion is probably more work than figuring out how to do it in Photoshop. Again, what quality can a newbie achieve with photoshop after a couple days effort? And how long will Stable Diffusion be hard to setup? You do realize someone's going to come up with an easy-to-run "revengeporn.exe" sooner rather than later?
        stale2002 3y ago
        > Again, what quality can a newbie achieve with photoshop after a couple days effort? The answer is a better quality than if they are trying to figure out stable diffusion.
        tivert 3y ago
        > The answer is a better quality than if they are trying to figure out stable diffusion. Prove it. Give some newbie Photoshop and a week of time, and show me how well they can Photoshop the face of a particular person (say Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture) onto some porn.
        stale2002 3y ago
        > Prove it. Literally all some kid has to do is use the Photoshop magic wand feature to copy someone's face and post it on another image. High schoolers don't care about the difference. They'll harass the target just as much if those kinds of pictures show up around school. And that would only take a couple minutes to produce. High schoolers don't need a 3000$ gaming computer, and the skills of figuring out how a GitHub repo and install process works to harass their fellow students. You are entirely confused about what the problem is here. Slight differences in technology are not the cause of the problem of sexual harassment.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > It's sad that people seem to be consistently incapable of understanding this nuance... It's a problem software engineers (or some superset that contains them) seem particularly prone to.
        shlubbert 3y ago
        Something something binary thinking
      - kbelder 3y ago
        It's not a matter of understanding; people just disagree.
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
      > You're making a false equivalence. "AI" image generation is so much easier to do and requires so much less skill than Photoshopping something that you're really dealing with an entirely different problem. And Photoshop is so much easier to do and requires much less skill than carving marble statues. I say we also ban Photoshop and only allow chisels and stones.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > And Photoshop is so much easier to do and requires much less skill than carving marble statues. You are frankly missing the point. The issue isn't easier, the issue is crossing a threshold of easiness or scalability that means the problems can't be managed the same way as they were in the past. For instance: the problem of revenge porn was severely limited before cameras existed, before the internet made mass distribution of photos effortless, and before image search engines made them easy to find. Digital cameras + internet distribution + search engines removed technological limiting factors, and made the problem significantly more severe and widespread. That change in severity lead to new legislation. But with digital camera photos, there are limiting factors that make individual-infraction level enforcement possible: the perpetrator needs some physical access to the victim such that the victim usually knows who took the photo. Generative AI even removes that limitation. That might no mean anything should change, but it does mean "LOL. I can find similarities between the processes so they're the same," isn't a reasonable response.
- mnd999 3y ago
  You decide everything is either good or bad with no shades of grey, declare yourself a free speech absolutist and tell everyone that however bad that is, censorship is worse.
  - ewrqrqw33 3y ago
    [dead]
  - echelon 3y ago
    We already have the laws we want, more or less. It's just that the barriers to creation have been lowered. If we encumber the tech with regulation, only the giants will be able to engineer the adequate protections that fit the letter of the law. You'll effectively be choosing the winners and creating a massive barrier to entry for everyone else.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    Free speech absolutists, an absurd insult for that matter, usually have the exact opposite position and leave the question of morality open.
- hiatus 3y ago
  How do you deal with that now, when a sufficiently-skilled artist can do the same for anyone?
  - zztop44 3y ago
    You don’t have deal with it very much because the barrier of finding a sufficiently skilled artist who is motivated to do so is quite high compared to the reward. If the barrier is simply typing a few words into a web app however… Spam email and annoying door to door sales might look like similar problems, but they demand very different solutions.
    - hiatus 3y ago
      I knew this would be the counter. The parent said nothing about scale. We already have laws around this kind of thing, the technology used is irrelevant to the application of the law. Murder is murder whether it's with a gun or poison.
      - j16sdiz 3y ago
        > Murder is murder whether it's with a gun or poison. But we have laws specifically for weapons of mass destruction, instead of just suing those who use nuclear bomb with murder
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jedberg 3y ago
        But scale matters, because usually the law doesn't get involved until scale is reached. We didn't used to have anti-spam laws because it wasn't a problem at small scales. Then it became easy for everyone and became a problem, so laws were created specifically to combat electronic spam, because current laws didn't cover that situation.
  - lancesells 3y ago
- causi 3y ago
  The same way you deal with people photoshopping real faces onto nude bodies.
- echelon 3y ago
  Exactly how we deal with it now. Laws against the specific undesired behavior. Burdening these systems early on with legislated regulations only makes it so that the incumbents win. Regulations are a moat.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    Luckily for image generation they did not win. Different situation for LLMs though. You are correct that it would only entrench positions. I am angry at EU legislation. While it was heavily involved in research, legislation are again on the course to fortify dominance of established big tech players. Probably because their interests often align with media interests, which have a huge influence on EU politics. And I do not mean the open and independent part of media, rather the established players that have direct business relations with huge tech firms.
- zirgs 3y ago
  Prosecute people who distribute this stuff?
  - ImHereToVote 3y ago
    We don't go through the judicial system here.
- tekla 3y ago
  Thoughtcrime should not be a thing. We can make laws for distribution of AI generated material
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - loki-ai 3y ago
    OpenAI uploading an illegal image to your machine is more than a thoughtcrime. They become the person distributing this content, and there are already laws for that.
- stavros 3y ago
  [flagged]
- NegativeK 3y ago
  I'm not asking for a for the children blob of legislation here, everyone. But I do see mass-scale generation of nonconsensual images, well beyond individually commissioned works -- and actual CSAM blending in with it because it becomes indistinguishable -- as a real problem. We're having nuanced discussions about how to deal with misinformation, including mass-scale generation of it from LLMs. Why can't we have those discussions about AI porn so that we can come up with solutions that are somewhere between "change nothing/don't be a prude" and "go full authoritarian"?
  - braelen7 3y ago
    I mean if you want to have that discussion then how do you differentiate fictional death and murder in movies and the written word vs AI generated nudity? To me, it seems like we quickly get into the AI image equivalent of prosecuting the actor in a movie for committing the murder of a fictional character. We even go as far to have the entire genre of horror movies at mass Hollywood scale based around fictional death and murder. It gets even stranger with sex and nudity when such a large % of people are online porn consumers. I have seen the figure for men at 90%. It is where I think the market will actually figure out the solution and that the porn consumer will want assurance the person is real and not AI. What is disingenuous in this debate to me is that chatGPT estimates there might be over 100 million pictures of real naked people on the internet as of 2021 lol. It is like we are pretending these pictures don't already exist of real people at a huge scale and that no one really looks at them at huge scale now. It is only when AI starts cranking them out people will be so tempted and THAT is a big problem. If anything, this is the much bigger problem that we can no longer discern the magnitude of a problem in the real world vs the R0 of the idea of a problem online. "Since everyone is posting about AI generated nudity/porn, it must be a big problem."
    - NegativeK 3y ago
      For context, I was referring to using someone's likeness or CSAM. Both of those are significantly different than fictional characters portrayed by consenting actors.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Rule 34 of the Internet. Trying to stop it is futile.
- redox99 3y ago
  I wouldn't mind having my face deepfaked into a porn or whatever as long as there was a small watermark or something that indicated it was fake. I think enforcement should be focused on disclosing what's AI generated/fake, not on banning altogether.
chankstein38 3y ago
Right? It's almost like, as adults, we shouldn't be limited by the existence of children. Like businesses should assume parents are going to keep their kids from doing things bad and let those of us who will never have children just do the things we want to do.
- hiatus 3y ago
  "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." ― Mark Twain
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  "Have kids and deal with it, don't bother us or the society in general" feels like a good slogan to encourage parenthood.
- fy20 3y ago
  From one side we are trying to stop 13 year old boys from making pictures of AI boobs, and from the other side our school system is teaching children about sex before they even reach the age of 10.
stavros 3y ago
Because they may use it to generate sexual images? Kids have two ages: "Don't care about sex" and "care about sex". If they've gotten to the point where they care about sex, your AI image generator filter isn't going to put their hormones back in the box. It's mystifying to me why American culture wants to insist that sexual urges must come the moment you're 21, and not a second earlier, otherwise you're somehow sinful.
- lawlessone 3y ago
  18 21 is when they allow booze.
  - stavros 3y ago
    Well, the age of consent is 13-16, depending on state, but it doesn't affect the broader point.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      and many states circumvent that in the judiciary, we have child marriage to undermine other concepts like pedophilia, statutory rape here just like in developing nations its actually quite rampant, possibly more in absolute numbers than the countries we think about, we just chose not to focus media or civil rights attention on it https://19thnews.org/2023/07/explaining-child-marriage-laws-united-states/?amp https://19thnews.org/2023/07/explaining-child-marriage-laws-... https://www.cfr.org/blog/its-time-end-child-marriage-united-states https://www.cfr.org/blog/its-time-end-child-marriage-united-... https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/09/cassie-levesque-new-hampshire-child-marriage-524159 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/09/cassie-lev... pick whichever source you respect more, I’m not that invested
makeitdouble 3y ago
I'm really curious about how a society would look like when kids are properly shielded from harmful resources until they're adults, so: - no social networks - no uncurated wikis or online forums - no AI That's quite a crash when they enter adult life and have to adapt to all of that basically on their own.
- failbuffer 3y ago
  Add to that: - no sex ed It really feels like there are a lot of parents who think they can keep their kids safe by keeping them dumb about how their bodies work.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I guess the converse is having to educate teens about the internet the same way I, at school, was educated about sex[0] and drugs[1]. [0] entirely heteronormative, Section 28 applied; also mostly Catholic, but rather more secular than you might expect from that description. First I even saw the word chlamydia was after I finished the GCSEs and went to a secular place for my A-levels. [1] and not rock and roll. The drugs were booze (drink responsibly), cigarettes (expensive cancer sticks), and all other drugs collectively under the banner "will destroy your life and/or kill you" (which turned out to be a whole mass of outright lies, for example "dealers trying to get primary school kids addicted to LSD" and basically everything they told us about the death of Leah Betts).

Maybe just be less prudent about nudity in general. And deny kids access to AI image generation. Problem solved.

NegativeK 3y ago

How do you deal with nonconsensual generation of images of real people in sexual acts, including children?

Bognar 3y ago
How do you deal with the same in Photoshop?
- tivert 3y ago
  >> How do you deal with nonconsensual generation of images of real people in sexual acts, including children? > How do you deal with the same in Photoshop? You're making a false equivalence. "AI" image generation is so much easier to do and requires so much less skill than Photoshopping something that you're really dealing with an entirely different problem.
  - shlubbert 3y ago
    It's sad that people seem to be consistently incapable of understanding this nuance; same with the "but humans also learn by studying existing work!" argument that always come up when discussing the ethics of training and datasets.
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      The difference of nuance vs Photoshop is completely unclear. Back in 2005 or so, kuro5hin (a now gone discussion site) closed signups because somebody photoshopped the founder's wife's head onto some porn. That was 18 years ago. True, doing it with Photoshop took a bit of skill, but it is a skill a lot of people have, for whom it would be doable in minutes. For a newbie, figuring out Stable Diffusion is probably more work than figuring out how to do it in Photoshop. And IMO the training argument is long term a pointless waste of time.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > The difference of nuance vs Photoshop is completely unclear. It's perfectly clear if you realize similar is not same. > Back in 2005 or so, kuro5hin (a now gone discussion site) closed signups because somebody photoshopped the founder's wife's head onto some porn. That was 18 years ago. So what? Everyone here understands that's possible. If you think that example somehow addresses the concern, you missed the point. > True, doing it with Photoshop took a bit of skill, but it is a skill a lot of people have, for whom it would be doable in minutes. Also, IIRC, that particular Photoshop of Rusty's wife was terrible, as in obvious. The skill "a lot of people have" is to make bad photoshops. Generative AI has the ability to near-effortlessly make high-resolution ones that most people could confuse for a real photo. > For a newbie, figuring out Stable Diffusion is probably more work than figuring out how to do it in Photoshop. Again, what quality can a newbie achieve with photoshop after a couple days effort? And how long will Stable Diffusion be hard to setup? You do realize someone's going to come up with an easy-to-run "revengeporn.exe" sooner rather than later?
        stale2002 3y ago
        > Again, what quality can a newbie achieve with photoshop after a couple days effort? The answer is a better quality than if they are trying to figure out stable diffusion.
        tivert 3y ago
        > The answer is a better quality than if they are trying to figure out stable diffusion. Prove it. Give some newbie Photoshop and a week of time, and show me how well they can Photoshop the face of a particular person (say Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture) onto some porn.
        stale2002 3y ago
        > Prove it. Literally all some kid has to do is use the Photoshop magic wand feature to copy someone's face and post it on another image. High schoolers don't care about the difference. They'll harass the target just as much if those kinds of pictures show up around school. And that would only take a couple minutes to produce. High schoolers don't need a 3000$ gaming computer, and the skills of figuring out how a GitHub repo and install process works to harass their fellow students. You are entirely confused about what the problem is here. Slight differences in technology are not the cause of the problem of sexual harassment.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > It's sad that people seem to be consistently incapable of understanding this nuance... It's a problem software engineers (or some superset that contains them) seem particularly prone to.
      - shlubbert 3y ago
        Something something binary thinking
    - kbelder 3y ago
      It's not a matter of understanding; people just disagree.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    > You're making a false equivalence. "AI" image generation is so much easier to do and requires so much less skill than Photoshopping something that you're really dealing with an entirely different problem. And Photoshop is so much easier to do and requires much less skill than carving marble statues. I say we also ban Photoshop and only allow chisels and stones.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > And Photoshop is so much easier to do and requires much less skill than carving marble statues. You are frankly missing the point. The issue isn't easier, the issue is crossing a threshold of easiness or scalability that means the problems can't be managed the same way as they were in the past. For instance: the problem of revenge porn was severely limited before cameras existed, before the internet made mass distribution of photos effortless, and before image search engines made them easy to find. Digital cameras + internet distribution + search engines removed technological limiting factors, and made the problem significantly more severe and widespread. That change in severity lead to new legislation. But with digital camera photos, there are limiting factors that make individual-infraction level enforcement possible: the perpetrator needs some physical access to the victim such that the victim usually knows who took the photo. Generative AI even removes that limitation. That might no mean anything should change, but it does mean "LOL. I can find similarities between the processes so they're the same," isn't a reasonable response.
mnd999 3y ago
You decide everything is either good or bad with no shades of grey, declare yourself a free speech absolutist and tell everyone that however bad that is, censorship is worse.
- ewrqrqw33 3y ago
  [dead]
- echelon 3y ago
  We already have the laws we want, more or less. It's just that the barriers to creation have been lowered. If we encumber the tech with regulation, only the giants will be able to engineer the adequate protections that fit the letter of the law. You'll effectively be choosing the winners and creating a massive barrier to entry for everyone else.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  Free speech absolutists, an absurd insult for that matter, usually have the exact opposite position and leave the question of morality open.
hiatus 3y ago
How do you deal with that now, when a sufficiently-skilled artist can do the same for anyone?
- zztop44 3y ago
  You don’t have deal with it very much because the barrier of finding a sufficiently skilled artist who is motivated to do so is quite high compared to the reward. If the barrier is simply typing a few words into a web app however… Spam email and annoying door to door sales might look like similar problems, but they demand very different solutions.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    I knew this would be the counter. The parent said nothing about scale. We already have laws around this kind of thing, the technology used is irrelevant to the application of the law. Murder is murder whether it's with a gun or poison.
    - j16sdiz 3y ago
      > Murder is murder whether it's with a gun or poison. But we have laws specifically for weapons of mass destruction, instead of just suing those who use nuclear bomb with murder
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - jedberg 3y ago
      But scale matters, because usually the law doesn't get involved until scale is reached. We didn't used to have anti-spam laws because it wasn't a problem at small scales. Then it became easy for everyone and became a problem, so laws were created specifically to combat electronic spam, because current laws didn't cover that situation.
- lancesells 3y ago
causi 3y ago
The same way you deal with people photoshopping real faces onto nude bodies.
echelon 3y ago
Exactly how we deal with it now. Laws against the specific undesired behavior. Burdening these systems early on with legislated regulations only makes it so that the incumbents win. Regulations are a moat.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  Luckily for image generation they did not win. Different situation for LLMs though. You are correct that it would only entrench positions. I am angry at EU legislation. While it was heavily involved in research, legislation are again on the course to fortify dominance of established big tech players. Probably because their interests often align with media interests, which have a huge influence on EU politics. And I do not mean the open and independent part of media, rather the established players that have direct business relations with huge tech firms.
zirgs 3y ago
Prosecute people who distribute this stuff?
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  We don't go through the judicial system here.
tekla 3y ago
Thoughtcrime should not be a thing. We can make laws for distribution of AI generated material
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- loki-ai 3y ago
  OpenAI uploading an illegal image to your machine is more than a thoughtcrime. They become the person distributing this content, and there are already laws for that.
stavros 3y ago
[flagged]
NegativeK 3y ago
I'm not asking for a for the children blob of legislation here, everyone. But I do see mass-scale generation of nonconsensual images, well beyond individually commissioned works -- and actual CSAM blending in with it because it becomes indistinguishable -- as a real problem. We're having nuanced discussions about how to deal with misinformation, including mass-scale generation of it from LLMs. Why can't we have those discussions about AI porn so that we can come up with solutions that are somewhere between "change nothing/don't be a prude" and "go full authoritarian"?
- braelen7 3y ago
  I mean if you want to have that discussion then how do you differentiate fictional death and murder in movies and the written word vs AI generated nudity? To me, it seems like we quickly get into the AI image equivalent of prosecuting the actor in a movie for committing the murder of a fictional character. We even go as far to have the entire genre of horror movies at mass Hollywood scale based around fictional death and murder. It gets even stranger with sex and nudity when such a large % of people are online porn consumers. I have seen the figure for men at 90%. It is where I think the market will actually figure out the solution and that the porn consumer will want assurance the person is real and not AI. What is disingenuous in this debate to me is that chatGPT estimates there might be over 100 million pictures of real naked people on the internet as of 2021 lol. It is like we are pretending these pictures don't already exist of real people at a huge scale and that no one really looks at them at huge scale now. It is only when AI starts cranking them out people will be so tempted and THAT is a big problem. If anything, this is the much bigger problem that we can no longer discern the magnitude of a problem in the real world vs the R0 of the idea of a problem online. "Since everyone is posting about AI generated nudity/porn, it must be a big problem."
  - NegativeK 3y ago
    For context, I was referring to using someone's likeness or CSAM. Both of those are significantly different than fictional characters portrayed by consenting actors.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
charcircuit 3y ago
Rule 34 of the Internet. Trying to stop it is futile.
redox99 3y ago
I wouldn't mind having my face deepfaked into a porn or whatever as long as there was a small watermark or something that indicated it was fake. I think enforcement should be focused on disclosing what's AI generated/fake, not on banning altogether.

chankstein38 3y ago

Right? It's almost like, as adults, we shouldn't be limited by the existence of children. Like businesses should assume parents are going to keep their kids from doing things bad and let those of us who will never have children just do the things we want to do.

hiatus 3y ago
"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." ― Mark Twain
makeitdouble 3y ago
"Have kids and deal with it, don't bother us or the society in general" feels like a good slogan to encourage parenthood.
fy20 3y ago
From one side we are trying to stop 13 year old boys from making pictures of AI boobs, and from the other side our school system is teaching children about sex before they even reach the age of 10.

stavros 3y ago

Because they may use it to generate sexual images? Kids have two ages: "Don't care about sex" and "care about sex". If they've gotten to the point where they care about sex, your AI image generator filter isn't going to put their hormones back in the box. It's mystifying to me why American culture wants to insist that sexual urges must come the moment you're 21, and not a second earlier, otherwise you're somehow sinful.

lawlessone 3y ago
18 21 is when they allow booze.
- stavros 3y ago
  Well, the age of consent is 13-16, depending on state, but it doesn't affect the broader point.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    and many states circumvent that in the judiciary, we have child marriage to undermine other concepts like pedophilia, statutory rape here just like in developing nations its actually quite rampant, possibly more in absolute numbers than the countries we think about, we just chose not to focus media or civil rights attention on it https://19thnews.org/2023/07/explaining-child-marriage-laws-united-states/?amp https://19thnews.org/2023/07/explaining-child-marriage-laws-... https://www.cfr.org/blog/its-time-end-child-marriage-united-states https://www.cfr.org/blog/its-time-end-child-marriage-united-... https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/09/cassie-levesque-new-hampshire-child-marriage-524159 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/09/cassie-lev... pick whichever source you respect more, I’m not that invested

makeitdouble 3y ago

I'm really curious about how a society would look like when kids are properly shielded from harmful resources until they're adults, so: - no social networks - no uncurated wikis or online forums - no AI That's quite a crash when they enter adult life and have to adapt to all of that basically on their own.

failbuffer 3y ago
Add to that: - no sex ed It really feels like there are a lot of parents who think they can keep their kids safe by keeping them dumb about how their bodies work.
- ben_w 3y ago
  I guess the converse is having to educate teens about the internet the same way I, at school, was educated about sex[0] and drugs[1]. [0] entirely heteronormative, Section 28 applied; also mostly Catholic, but rather more secular than you might expect from that description. First I even saw the word chlamydia was after I finished the GCSEs and went to a secular place for my A-levels. [1] and not rock and roll. The drugs were booze (drink responsibly), cigarettes (expensive cancer sticks), and all other drugs collectively under the banner "will destroy your life and/or kill you" (which turned out to be a whole mass of outright lies, for example "dealers trying to get primary school kids addicted to LSD" and basically everything they told us about the death of Leah Betts).