2 ms·
The images are fake, so this just seems like another form of bullying to me, with possibly an added sex dimension, which is always a red-hot button for anglo-pr
by jacknews 3y ago
The images are fake, so this just seems like another form of bullying to me, with possibly an added sex dimension, which is always a red-hot button for anglo-protestant societies.
Is this really much different to bullies sending out pictures of the victims marked up with slurs? Or even cartoons depicting them in degrading situations or acts, eg like a cartoon of Mohammed with his pants down maybe, or of politicians and pigs and whatever.
- edanm 3y agoYes, it's really different on at least one dimension - the person in a nude photo has usually given consent to being photographed nude, which implies something about their actions. Whereas sending a picture of someone with slurs on it says nothing about the person themselves. Obviously if we get to a world in which it's common to see nude photos of people that are AI generated, such that the inference is wrong, that might change. But for now at least, sending a fake nude photo of someone can hurt them by making people think wrong things about them. (Whether it should hurt them, etc, are all irrelevant to my point btw - I'm saying there is a difference, not whether it matters or how.)
- jacknews 3y agoBut this is about AI generated nudes, not actual nudes, so there is no consent. I don't think there are many people now, especially young people, who are unaware that AI can generate such content, so the assumption must be that nudes are most likely fake until proven genuine. So much so in fact that even actual nudes could probably be brushed off as AI fakes - I know that's what I'd do.