5 ms·

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

by NegativeK 3y ago

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.

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.