13 ms·
X blocks Taylor Swift searches after fake AI videos go viral
- kylebenzle 3y ago[flagged]
- boringuser2 3y agoI mean, it's probably markedly less fun to see your exact likeness participating in pornographic acts, but, the thing is, you're right on the money here because this is the very tip of the iceberg of the horrors that are forthcoming with AI. I hate to say it, but Taylor Swift specifically hasn't seen anything yet.
- tmikaeld 3y agoQuestion is, how can it be blocked? An image is quite unique in it's hash/signature, but a video generate by AI can have billions of unique seeds.
- ls612 3y agoThey’ll probably just criminalize possession of GenAI image models. That’s clearly where the political winds are blowing.
- polski-g 3y agoThis would be struck down in violation of the First Amendment. One has a right to make images of others in anyway they see fit. If they try to sell their likeness in a commercial transaction, then things can be regulated. But if someone is releasing artwork for free of someone else, that is fair game.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> But if someone is releasing artwork for free of someone else, that is fair game. Within limits. If, say, said artist posts from their own account, signs the art, or otherwise links the deepfakes to themselves, then this could be unauthorized use of someone's image in order to benefit by raising their own status or otherwise profiting in another way than direct sales. I'm sure that's actionable.
- joe_hills 3y agoA computer can generate billions of unique seeds, but not billions of relationships with your sales team. Maybe don't allow companies you don't trust to buy ads? If only companies with a relationship with your sales team can buy ads from you, and they know they'll lose that ability if they run a fake AI ad, then you have far less to worry about. It could be argued that this may work for newspapers, TV, and radio stations, but can't scale for serious websites. Serious websites won't be taken seriously if they can't get this under control, and folks will be turning back to newspapers, TV, and radio stations to get away from it. Don't make them competitive again.
- jasfi 3y agoFor blocking you could use AI to determine if this is a picture of a celebrity that is nude. You'd probably whitelist the nude pictures of celebrities that have intentionally been photo'd nude. It's another question if any of the social media sites out there actually want to do this. Meta might, they seem interested in that type of research. The only way this will effectively be dealt with is: 1. Banning the people caught doing it from social media. 2. The law enforcement/judicial way. I don't know if new laws are required, there's probably something that already applies. E.g. if you Photoshop people in various ways and distribute the images, I'm quite sure the perpetrators get punished.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoBing already is very sensitive to using real people in its images though it's easily worked around. Ask it to draw Abraham Lincoln sinking in quicksand, it's likely to refuse. Ask it to draw a "presidential looking tall man with a dark beard but no moustache, dressed in a dark suit with a bow tie and a stovepipe hat" sinking in quicksand and it's going to make someone who looks like Lincoln far more than just that prompt should have lead to it creating. For someone like Taylor Swift, there are probably many attributes of hers that could be included in a prompt that would cause it to zero in on her likeness without it knowing that it is her that it is drawing.
- al_borland 3y agoI haven’t really played with Bing, but using some other site I was simply able to say a “a person who looks like _______” and it would get really close, while saying to use them directly wouldn’t work.
- tmikaeld 3y ago> For blocking you could use AI to determine if this is a picture of a celebrity that is nude While it would probably work, it sounds prohibitively expensive.
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoWrite laws that only allow early movers like Microsoft/OpenAI to have legal access to AI technology. Anyone else who wants to use them will have to go through one of these early movers who are granted exclusive license by the government and decide which uses are permitted. That won't stop some from still doing things on their own but will allow the government to imprison those caught doing it without authorization.
- j_maffe 3y agoWhy not just give these mega corporations complete control over the whole internet, while we're at it?
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoIt's notable that Microsoft has already come out and said the tech industry needs to write laws for Congress to pass on this matter. They were waiting for this moment to happen and are ready to take advantage.
- foobarian 3y agoGiven how easy it is to run LLMs at home, it seems that maybe it's time to also roll back the failed PC experiment and require permits to run computers at home with strict usage type limits.
- Dwedit 3y agoYou run the image through something like CLIP interrogator.
- willsmith72 3y agothe ease and scale of modern tech is on a completely different level to 2004 photoshop
- Drakim 3y agoAnd the scale and quality of 2004 photoshop was unlike anything before it.
- j_maffe 3y agoAnd the rise of photoshop use had created a shift in how we perceive images as a proof of events. It had also changed people's concerns about the privacy of personal pictures exactly because of this concern. This tech takes it to the next level of ease, spread, and eficacy to the point of video (which were nearly impossible a decade ago). The fact that significant technological shifts happen doesn't mean they aren't any less impactful.
- dralley 3y agoA hydrogen bomb is more powerful than a nuclear bomb is more powerful than TNT. That doesn't mean the hydrogen bomb isn't a step-change in the danger level.
- ethanbond 3y ago[flagged]
- V__ 3y ago[flagged]
- wand3r 3y agoI am not sure why you had to take this to a straw man racial place? While this is obviously problematic its likely societal attitudes will change as this becomes commonplace. Also, attitudes towards sex are changing in America. In 20 years there will be sitting US senators who have real onlyfans accounts now. Fake videos will be something that society has to accept and will likely rapidly get over
- idiotsecant 3y agoPhotoshop has existed for decades. How is this different enough that we need to spend this much time worrying about it, when we didn't previously?
- icegreentea2 3y agoWe can see an analogy to the legality of deepfake content itself. For now anyways, it appears that deepfake content itself is not illegal. Only the impact of distribution of it can have legal remedies (and criminal implications). Similarly in the arena of public attention, only the impact of an "event" has value. The combination of Swift as the target, and internet punching bag Twitter/X is a surefire way to ignite a firestorm. That said, I think prior iterations of deepfaking and fake celeb porn lacked the degree of exposure to really force a proper discussion of what role platforms should actually play. Like, when it was just a bunch of people on 4chan photoshopping faces around, and you had to go to like 3rd page of search results to find it, the impact was clearly low, and no one cared to really think through what should happen. Now we have a situation which is acting like a forcing function. What are the differences (if any) do deepfake porn have with photoshops (or just drawings...). What is the quality of them that substantiates a different response (if any?). If there aren't, then maybe we got our initial response to photoshopped porn wrong (and got away with it because the scale didn't matter), and we need to revisit.
- mihaic 3y agoDifferences of quantity can become differences of type. It's one thing for instance of a handful of governments have nuclear weapons, it's another if a few million individual can get their hands on them. I think it's not really clear if the AI flood is just like Photoshop, and what the long-term effects are.
- fullshark 3y agoAI: both a game changing revolutionary technology and "nothing."
- 1B05H1N 3y agoIt matters now because it's easy to do?
- samstave 3y agoIt matters because she is famous? If this was just some random person, this would be a blip on nightly news - similar to the revengeporn website stuff. It must be really interesting though, to be the person in all of Human History who is at the creation of a Humanity's awareness that controlling AI versions of our likeness is going to be an impactful and meaningful area in legal precedent for here to evermore. Swift, IMO, should feel a certain sense of weird-luckiness? to literally the Human where we begin the discussion of protecting ourselves from AI fakes.... My question is, then, if Swift can be entirely in control of how her likeness is used in any context, then what about any random person's likeness being scanned, documented and analyzed by millions of camera surveillance feeds every day? Its a weird tangent, but if Swift creates the foundation for (what would this be, case law? Precedent? Dont know what legal terms define this) - what impact could it have for people defending the even capture of their likeness by systems that use that likeness to develop a catalog of your biometric-behavors to track you, recreate you, catalog you, define you, and then have business systems use that data to make decisions upon or against you? If I own all aspects of my biologics, then do I have ay agency over how data captured, and AI-ified, amy be used?
- foogazi 3y ago> If this was just some random person, this would be a blip on nightly news - similar to the revengeporn website stuff. Still a crime regardless of the victims notoriety
- Mountain_Skies 3y agoHollywood is already struggling with how to handle these types of issues, with actors wanting to maintain control of their likeness and studios wanting to be able to own those at the very least as a "work for hire" property in the context of a movie character. Not that this is completely new. Crispen Glover sued over the producers of 'Back to the Future II' using another actor to give the impression of him playing the George McFly character instead of recasting the character or writing around the absence of the character. IIRC, Glover ended up winning.
- exo-pla-net 3y agohttps://archive.is/9ErBf https://archive.is/9ErBf
- kotaKat 3y agoI assume this is why Nitter got slammed and is on the verge of breaking. https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/issues/1154 https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/issues/1154
- techdragon 3y agoI don’t see the connection.
- JoeMattiello 3y agoPeople use nitter for embedding tweets where twitter has been broken for ages such as in telegram. Personally I use fixupx dot com
- techdragon 3y agoI meant I don’t see how the issues nitter faces at the moment are connected to this specific situation. The problems with jitter have been as a result of continued efforts to block scraping and bots after the removal of any non paid API access… which based on the AI/LLM generated instant reply guy bots that follow popular accounts and automatically post comments so predictable I’ve personally witnessed some of the OpenAI error code text just put verbatim into the tweet body. They have basically managed to raise the floor for scraping and automated twitter use without paying a stupidly overpriced API access fee to require you run a full browser via selenium or some other similar set of tooling. Nitter isn’t going this far so it’s struggling to maintain reliable access. Guest accounts expiring is a real cliff in terms of how Nitter uses the various Twitter APIs and they stopped making new guest account tokens a little while ago and the tokens people have generated so far are all beginning to expire… which is just one prominent thing among the many things causing Nitter instances to have problems.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoA lot of people have recently been using Nitter to view tweet threads when they do not have a Twitter account.
- sgc 3y ago[flagged]
- Horffupolde 3y agoYou are advised to chill.
- hasty_pudding 3y agoMeanwhile it's like every other thread on 4chan /b. if you ever want to know what truly censorship resistant sites are, just post AI pictures of Taylor Swift.
- rc_mob 3y agoi gave up on that place when 4chan started to worship authoritarian trump
- hasty_pudding 3y agoI gave up on politics in general. Now I find it strange that people care so strongly about things they have such little control over. lol People on 4chan are motivated by doing things for the lulz more than any ideology..and you have to admit Trump presidency would provide the most lulz.
- netsharc 3y agoI have a feeling the OG 4chan-ners were doing it for the "lulz", but when it became well-known as a "site where the users supports Trump", all the bleeding-heart Trump supporters (including the actually deplorable e.g. the white supremacists) actually started frequenting the site... I wonder how most of the media's inability to see jokes as what they are contributed to their misreporting...
- f38zf5vdt 3y agoThe DALLE3 stuff on 4chan is 10000% worse than nudes. One of my friends showed me a picture of TS putting jews in ovens in a concentration camp. Microsoft is the one spouting out about the need for "generative image AI safety", meanwhile they have to be the worst offender given some of the stuff I've seen out of Bing.
- vdaea 3y ago[flagged]
- TheLoafOfBread 3y agoEveryone talking in defense of Taylor Swift up to the White House has created massive Streisand effect. Yet AI porn is here for few years at least.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Shawnj2 3y agoAI porn trained off of a dataset of people who are fine being in an AI porn dataset vs. AI porn of celebrities who understandably go to great lengths to protect their image rights are different categories.
- gizmo686 3y agoThis is not about Taylor Swift. If you want to fight against non consensual AI porn, you need someone to be the face of it. Swift is a good candidate because: A) She comes with a lot of free PR, that you would have to work for if you wanted to build up a token victim from nothing and B) She is already a massivly well known public figure. She has money, a platform, a PR team; she will be fine. Heck, she probably already had photoshopped poen of her floating around the internet for years. Swift will be absolutely fine with being made the face of this. Your random Jane Doe would not.
- Teever 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell You're right that it's not about her but wrong that she's a good candidate.
- _heimdall 3y agoTaylor Swift also isn't one to shy away from a public moral stand. She picked a fight with streaming services and her former label. This seems like one I could see her stepping in to take a public stand on.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y agoIt is interesting to contrast this reaction with widespread blocking and calling for laws with the reaction to Kanye West’s Famous video which featured a wax model of a naked Taylor Swift in bed with him. https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/famous-video-kanye/ https://www.robertreeveslaw.com/blog/famous-video-kanye/ There is almost an elitism that things are ok as long as someone famous does them but if the common people do things, then there is outrage and a desire to involve the law against them.
- thih9 3y agoTrue, that wasn’t ok either. At the same time this instance seems more dangerous, due to the obvious - scale, availability, technology advancements in an unregulated field, also the level of explicit content. I see no elitism. If Kanye distributed explicit AI deepfake, there would be similar outrage. If a “common person” made a wax model of a celebrity and recorded a music video, they would be labeled a weirdo at most.
- kkarakk 3y agoAs andy warhol said - "Art is what you can get away with". Kanye gets a (heavily frowned upon)pass because there is an inherent artistic and cultural commentary sensibility to the video.
- kkarakk 3y agoThere are sex workers who already use AI tech to produce images of themselves trained on their pictures - for eg, https://www.susu.bot/ https://www.susu.bot/ (NSFW) This is likely the (near) future of this tech, you can't control it only monetise it so that the ease of use is more convenient than spending a couple of hours downloading publicly available images and training models yourself. (The industrial revolution and it's consequences hit the world of celebrity...)
- Khaine 3y agoFake Celebrity porn has been a thing for the longest time. In the 90s people used to airbrush the face/head of a celebrity onto the body of a nude model. Prior to that people used their imaginations. What has changed since then? I guess technology now makes this easier, has fakes like this become more socially unacceptable?
- dharmab 3y agoThe change is now it takes about 5 seconds and a nice-ish computer instead of hours of skilled work.
- _heimdall 3y agoSo is the problem that fake porn is being created, or the ease in which it can be created? The latter almost makes it sound like fake celebrity porn is more of an art form that should be appreciated and guarded from cheap knock offs.
- ender341341 3y ago> or the ease in which it can be created? It's the volume of it, which comes from the ease.
- DonsDiscountGas 3y agoAlso the speed with which they spread.
- _heimdall 3y agoSo some fake celebrity porn is fine, but there's a line where we have too much?
- calamari4065 3y agoLiterally nobody but you has even suggested this.
- Rapzid 3y agoI don't know that I care much about this. How do we even know it's Taylor Swift and not a lookalike? Wait..
- maxbond 3y agoIf you believe AI has tremendous potential to do good - you should sit upright and pay attention when it does harm. Because it's up to people like you to demonstrate to society that it does more good than it does harm. And if your response is to roll your eyes and say that everything is fine because people could do this in Photoshop - you are making yourself irrelevant. You are telegraphing that your support of AI is untethered to the harms normal everyday people care about. People aren't dumb and they're going to notice that you aren't in their corner. And then they're going to start deciding what to do about AI without you. I am reminded of one of my favorite HN comments, made in response to Amazon automatically recommending "suicide kits" to people. > As a developer, as a data scientist, as a designer, as a business leader, you are responsible for things like this. Do not make excuses. Do not disclaim liability. Acknowledge the mistake and fix it. We can do better. > -- 'kitanata https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33142941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33142941
- skybrian 3y agoThis is not how blame works. You have no idea who is reading your message.
- maxbond 3y agoI have no interest in blaming anyone. I'm talking about an attitude I see in this thread, which I believe is shortsighted.
- skybrian 3y agoYour post is warning about how other people will be held in judgement: > People aren't dumb and they're going to notice that you aren't in their corner. And then they're going to start deciding what to do about AI without you. I find it rather dubious. Who are these people who will remember what some random Hacker News commenters said? Why would they be listening to them in the first place? It seems like an empty threat.
- 3y ago
- shrubble 3y ago[flagged]
- zht 3y agoWhat? Someone uses their sexuality to sell so it’s okay to create and post images of them engaging in sexual acts?
- devit 3y ago[flagged]
- maxbond 3y agoThis is extremely inappropriate. That's why the articles haven't linked to them.
- RecycledEle 3y agoWith all this AI, why doesn't any web browser (or social media website) use AI to filter likely nudes (real and deep fake) and send them to reviewers? I woul pay for a browser plugin that blocked potentially pornographic images
- SamuelAdams 3y agoApple recently rolled out a feature on iOS and Macs called Communication Safety. I’m sure it would be easy enough to apply to third party web browsers. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212850 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212850
- consumer451 3y agoSo if a bad actor wants to remove a famous person from X’s search results, they just need to make some fake denigrating media files about them? This does not sound very good for any well known party.