8 ms·

Somewhat controversial but honestly, if someone will consume this sort of material, I rather it is deepfake than the real thing. I think it's pretty authoritari

• r0ckarong 2y ago
  I think this new dimension makes things even worse. Soon everyone will be able to steal your image to depict you doing whatever they can think up that's disturbing to me. I know that you can do this with photo editing skills already but AI will be like the iPhone for abuse.
  • rustcleaner 2y ago
    I can already imagine you in drag and induce others to as well. Stop morally panicking before we accidentally cede even more liberty to the State!
  • beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    If everyone fake, no one can. Maybe it will sabotage video as viable evidence and eliminate the surveillance apparatchik of cameras everywhere as useful in proving anything.
    • ben_w 2y ago
      That everyone can libel doesn't mean no one can. That everyone can perjure themselves by libelling someone while under oath doesn't mean no one can. And if anything, it would strengthen rather than eliminate surveillance apparatchik of cameras everywhere — as term "apparatchik" has its origins in soviet government, in this context it would therefore be exactly the subset of surveillance apparatus[0] that the government deemed trustworthy. [0] and now I'm wondering if "apparatchik" was an auto-corrupt of "apparatus"?
    • llamaimperative 2y ago
      You’re aware some people like having security cameras available to prove things, like who broke into their homes or jumped them on the street, right? “Finally! We’ll have no way to prove anything at all! This is a big win!” Makes zero sense.
  • derkster 2y ago
    Hard agree, I like to keep up with the newest models by throwing new haircuts on friends, making bad AI memes, just random stuff - and there's tons of models strictly for generating NSFW content. I saw a LoRA last night that was straight up called "facesitting", on the most popular hub to post/download models. This is going to probably sound insane, but my primary concern is tech not being able to bridge the gap fast enough for this to be used to enhance our ability instead of enfeebling it. But hey, maybe this is our centuries calculator and I'm just crazy.
  • RGamma 2y ago
    Thankfully the legions of scammers have made many non-techies distrustful by default in some settings (e.g. personal finance, computer security). I think something like it will happen with gen AI stuff too. If everything can be fabricated at scale, doubt will be at the top of the mind and trusted channels will form.
    • semi 2y ago
      I'm not sure that's true though. It's always been more trivial to doctor a screenshot, even just editing a webpage in dev tools prior to taking a screenshot. And yet people reshare and react to screenshots of tweets and similar all the time. The authenticity is only really questioned if it strongly goes against whatever narrative one already believes. And then that ability to fake them also gets used to dismiss legitimate honest information because it could have been faked.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• michaelmarkell 2y ago
  From the article it seems like the content wasn’t entirely AI generated, it “digitally superimposed the faces of child actors onto nude bodies”, which makes this a lot worse than purely AI generated content
  • Retric 2y ago
    Why specifically? The child actors aren’t harmed, nor is anyone else as far as I can see. So what exactly makes this worse than say AI art or a painting?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • nurettin 2y ago
      It was trained on macabre images. So there is real CP involved.
    • basil-rash 2y ago
      The face actors weren’t harmed, the body actors (unidentifiable, but in all likelyhood youth) were.
      • throwaway11460 2y ago
        How do you know it's not bodies of willing adult pornographic actors that merely appear child-like? Why would you swap faces when you already had the pictures, if not to hide the adult facial features?
        • basil-rash 2y ago
          By that argument, deep fake porn shouldn’t exist at all. But it does, so clearly that’s not the way these people see the world. Some faces are simply “better” than others, at least in so far as those with perverted pornographic desires are concerned. Regardless, child faces in adult bodies is in fact still illegal, see this detailed court report for more info: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-smelko-2 https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-smelko-2 To amend my prior comment, the law says that the face actors in fact are harmed as well, reputationally. Fair enough; I’m not here to play “defend the pedo”.
• Mordisquitos 2y ago
  I was about to comment that use of the newish term "CSAM" over the old fashioned "CP" seemed out of place here, given that the argument to prefer "Child Sexual Abuse Material" over "Child Porn" is to emphasise the sexual abuse of a child that took place to create it. So, at first glance, my immediate thought was that deepfakes would more accurately be described as child pornography than child sexual abuse material by their very nature. However, it isn't clear to me from the press release which was the origin of the "nude bodies and bodies engaged in sex acts" on which the condemned man superimposed the faces of child celebrities. Were those bodies from consenting adults, or were they from non-celebrity children? If it's the first case I would argue that the images possessed by this man were CP, not CSAM, and you may have a good point to raise a debate. If on the other hand the original body images were indeed from children then this instance can accurately be described as CSAM (but I'm an old fogey and will continue to call it CP) and it wouldn't be a case of government overreach — the fact that the man used deepfakes to replace the faces of the children being exploited is a mere curiosity.
  • throwaway290 2y ago
    > use of the newish term "CSAM" over the old fashioned "CP" seemed out of place here Training data though.
  • jorvi 2y ago
    I think a secondary question is: how is this illegal but someone doing the same with a children’s fashion magazine, a Playboy and some glue isn’t? Which is a wider question for deepfakes in general: how is it possible that I can grab a pencil and legally draw, say, Halle Berry in some sort of pornographic pose, but if I do the same via deep learning, it’s suddenly illegal. It doesn’t make sense, and makes me feel like the arguments behind it are on very shaky legal ground. Note that this is separate from sharing these images, where the real harm happens.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • gizmo686 2y ago
• lr4444lr 2y ago
  If the deep fake is of a real person, there is still reputation damage to the person featured. That said, you're touching on something important. These people appear to be incurable, and it's about time we started talking about giving them some kind of outlet that mitigates the harm they might cause under the current regime of simply telling them they just have to restrain themselves. I don't know what the right answer is: VR? Sex dolls? Anything that will reduce the number of attempted incidents against actual children should be considered.
  • ht85 2y ago
    > VR? Sex dolls? Until now, VR child porn and child sized sex dolls were not on my mind when I thought of state sponsored healthcare. I say this half jokingly, I am not really sure how I would want society to deal with that kind of mental illness. It's hard to have a nuanced perception of it, yet without nuance we are no better than the people we judge...
  • eastbound 2y ago
    Especially since we’ve witnessed, after 20 years of porn on the internet, that far from resulting in youths being unfathomably promiscuous, it rather results in a youths not going out enough.
  • soulofmischief 2y ago
    > If the deep fake is of a real person, there is still reputation damage to the person featured. Only if the material was distributed by the individual. If the material remained on the individual's computer, I just don't understand how someone can argue that harm has occurred. Like, maybe there is an argument that some non-zero level of "harm" occurred due to perceived normalization of untoward behavior, but is this worth allowing a slippery slope with no immediately apparent bottom? Where will our benevolent government draw the line on what kind of thought crime is permissible? It's getting really tiring that the only people routinely coming to bat over these kinds of issues are cybersecurity professionals and privacy advocates; the average person still seems to buy into this propaganda and it harms everyone in the end, as our collective ability to effectively fight bureaucratic tyranny becomes systematically reduced.
  • 2y ago
• ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  One of the problems with this kind of thing, in general, is that it tends to escalate. We may start off, reading raunchy comics, but the need for "more" grows, until we find that only The Real Thing will suffice. This doesn't happen to everyone, but it happens to enough folks, that it can be a serious problem (and also, serious money. Pr0n companies bank on getting folks to go deeper into the rabbithole). I should add that, in the US, sexual offense convictions are really a life sentence. Offenders need to register as sex offenders on public databases, for the rest of their lives, and, quite often, are not allowed to live near schools. I know that in one city, there was a bridge that a whole bunch of sex offenders lived under, because there was nowhere else they could rent apartments.
  • bawolff 2y ago
    It seems like there are two conflicting theories: Either A - its a gateway to worse behaviour. Thus criminalizing this prevents future victims. Or B - its gives pedophiles a release not involving real people, thus preventing victimization of real people that would have otherwise happened. What laws we should make as a society depends on which of these opposite theories are true. Is there any actual research on this? Surely psychologists must have studied this.
    • mc32 2y ago
      There’s also the possibility that both are true. Some people stop at weed, but some people go on and get hooked on bad drugs. Maybe, some day, they’ll develop an unaddiction drug as well as an unpervert drug or treatment.
      • roenxi 2y ago
        I agree that they are both probably true, but I don't think that fully addresses bawolff's point which I would interpret as harm reduction. If, on net, the B class dominates the other by a big margin then the net harm would be reduced and laws shouldn't be harsh - even if the A scenario plays out sometimes. The law should try to figure out who is actually causing abuse to happen and then target them. My bet is it would be a net reduction because if you hit someone with dopamine when they are staring at a screen they spend more time staring at screens (I'm pretty sure we found that was how violent video games work out, most gamers are a bit more of the weedy and harmless style in real life). But some stats would be helpful.
• chalcolithic 2y ago
  Not to mention that a good quality deep fakes (once legalized) will completely destroy any economic incentive for real CP production.
  • llamaimperative 2y ago
    We don’t know that. There’s a perfectly sane argument that it’ll amplify it by increasing availability and allowing more people to “dip their toes” so to speak. I think this is something researchers should try to figure out rather urgently. If it can destroy incentives then great, if it amplifies then, obviously, not great.
    • friend_and_foe 2y ago
      If people can "dip their toes" into something and then develop a proclivity towards it, doesn't that imply sexuality is not innate? If it is innate then this is not a concern, and if it is not innate, the prevailing views we have on this topic are going to challenge that conclusion.
      • llamaimperative 2y ago
        You're wondering whether preferences and tastes can develop or shift over time and with exposure? Obviously they can and do. Presumably you’re pointing to “ahh so we CAN pray the gay away!” or whatever other ridiculous intervention you can imagine. The pushback on this mode of thinking has little to do with whether people’s preferences can hypothetically change and more to do with 1) who the fuck cares outside of theological arguments which have no standing in developed legal systems, and 2) the “interventions” are generally barbaric and across the board not shown to be effective. Obviously people who want to voluntarily attempt these interventions are more than welcome to (and do). But that’s never what the conversation is about.
        • throwaway290 2y ago
          > preferences and tastes can develop or shift over time and with exposure You'd be surprised how many progressive(?) people would balk and call you out if you suggest that...