3 ms·

This article does not make it clear if the material was actually deepfaked, or just photoshopped; it simply mentions superimposing a face onto a naked body. No

This article does not make it clear if the material was actually deepfaked, or just photoshopped; it simply mentions superimposing a face onto a naked body. Not that it matters, the possession of either are clearly protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution, as no individual was harmed during the production of such material. This applies to any drawn, rendered or otherwise synthetic image, regardless of the subject content. You cannot make the mere possession of a synthetic image illegal. I'll entertain arguments about the need to limit distribution of such material as that can cause real harm to minors. But possession of synthetic images of ethical provenance? Give me a fucking break. Just setting precedent for the further erosion of all citizens' rights, via the thoroughly beaten and dead trojan horse of Think of The Children. Make no mistake. This is all to create a trail of precedence in order to restrict access to foundational generative models. We cannot allow our government to restrict our access to these new generative technologies while simultaneously wielding them against us.

ritwikgupta 2y ago
This is a misinformed and incorrect take. The PROTECT Act of 2003 [0] makes it illegal to possess CSAM that is generated by superimposing faces of minors onto sexually explicit imagery, or vice versa. This bill predates generative AI models by decades. There is no need to engage in conspiracy theories here — the law is clear that this kind of imagery is illegal. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/151 https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/151
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  It's not misinformed or incorrect. I'm aware of the current law and how it stand in opposition to the first amendment. Reread my post. > There is no need to engage in conspiracy theories here Please do not mischaracterize my post in such a light. There are no conspiracy theories here. There are ongoing, completely public, campaigns by both the Executive and Legislative branch to regulate access to generative models. There is a reason this press release vaguely uses the term "deepfake", which is completely distinct from dragging and dropping a minor's face onto an adult's body. Whether that reason is deliberate or negligent, it still serves the greater purpose. The debate over access to generative models with respect to CSAM has been hot for a while now, to ignore that debate and characterize my post as perpetuating conspiracy theories is just disingenuous.
  - ritwikgupta 2y ago
    1. The PROTECT Act provisions have repeatedly been upheld by both appellate the Supreme Court as constitutional as long as the CSAM in question meets the Miller or Ferber standards. Either the law is constitutional, or you’re proposing that the courts are illegitimate, the latter of which is conspiratorial. 2. You are right that there is a campaign to limit access to open source generative AI models, but it is not an initiative led by the government. Companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are leading the charge when it comes to emphasizing the danger of open source models and are lobbying every day to limit access. The executive and legislative branches are following suit with what industry executives tell them because they are deferred to as experts. Industry policy teams have invented vague, ill-defined terms such as “frontier models” and equate these models as having the same power as nuclear weapons. They have a vested interest in being the sole controllers of this technology. If you want to counter governmental efforts to limit access to such models, start by countering the FUD pushed by industry in this space.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      > The PROTECT Act provisions have repeatedly been upheld by both appellate the Supreme Court as constitutional as long as the CSAM in question meets the Miller or Ferber standards. Either the law is constitutional, or you’re proposing that the courts are illegitimate, the latter of which is conspiratorial. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely not "conspiratorial" to suggest that the judicial system is compromised. You have to be living under a rock to not understand that all three branches of government are effectively compromised to party-line political agendas backed by corporations, NGOs, etc. Our forefathers would have spit in disgust at the idea of the bill of rights being perverted to the point that drawing the wrong lines on a piece of paper and keeping it in one's own home calls for removing one's liberty and placing them in prison. And this extends to modern technology such as image editors. And I stress, we are talking about production/possession, not distribution. There is actually a case for restricting distribution of such material. Generally speaking, only a fool could look around at the state of the US government and say, "the laws are just and anyone who questions their justness is conspiratorial." That is textbook gaslighting, whether you intend for it or not. > You are right that there is a campaign to limit access to open source generative AI models, but it is not an initiative led by the government. Again, calling bullshit. [0] Our government is in the business of staying in business, at the expense of individual liberty. This is well established going back decades. I'm not even going to argue that point with you. And because of this, they will absolutely treat foundational models with the same playbook as cryptography in the 90's if they feel like it's necessary. [1] The government already did all of this with cryptography, and it was a war hard won. So you have to make the airtight case that they won't do it again. Not the other way around. You have to prove that they have changed for the better. I don't have to prove anything because history is on my side. Please, I beg of you, do not delude yourself that the US government wants what is best for you, while they are spending billions bombing hospitals overseas with tax dollars that could greatly benefit our own citizens. Do not delude yourself that it is just corporations, or just the government. It is CorpGov. They are, in the end, one in the same, in that they play ball when it suits them, and play against each other when it suits them. Don't be a sucker. And please don't accidentally gaslight others by throwing out accusations of conspiratorialism the moment they question the credibility of the US government. I expect any followup response to dispense with the gaslighting and ad hominem, and focus on fostering a constructive debate. If you can't do that, just end the conversation here and do some hard thinking. [0]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/29/biden-harris-administration-announces-key-ai-actions-180-days-following-president-bidens-landmark-executive-order/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
rustcleaner 2y ago
>Not that it matters, the possession of either are clearly protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution, as no individual was harmed during the production of such material. Wrong. Men are sitting decades for pen and paper art. I read more details, Smelko was caught up in someone else's search warrant. Arguably Smelko did nothing directly other than being at the wrong place/time to set off the chain of events which lead to his 15 year sentence. This is why I eagerly await jury duty notices, had I been on Smelko's trial I would have no-reason acquitted (known as jury nullification).
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  Not wrong. Reread the post. I said "clearly protected by the first amendment". That doesn't mean that our government hasn't enacted laws which go against the constitution. They do this all the time, it just goes unchallenged in the higher courts. And even the higher courts can be compromised. I'm speaking on legal consistency. I know people are sitting in jail for drawings, why do you think I'm making this case in the first place?
  - fiso64 2y ago
    >I know people are sitting in jail for drawings People are taking this for granted but I have yet to see an actual case. Every time this topic appeared on HN it also turned out that the offender had real CSAM on his devices as well.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      I don't personally know of any specific cases but I think it's sufficient to recognize that some countries, such as Canada, outright criminalize lolicon and other drawn material, and that the chilling effect alone is enough to push back. I've personally brushed against the effects of these laws while operating and moderating international discussion forums and boards, because it's easiest just to outright ban the stuff than deal with a myriad of laws across each country. And that doesn't even get into individual state laws.
    - 2y ago

ritwikgupta 2y ago

This is a misinformed and incorrect take. The PROTECT Act of 2003 [0] makes it illegal to possess CSAM that is generated by superimposing faces of minors onto sexually explicit imagery, or vice versa. This bill predates generative AI models by decades. There is no need to engage in conspiracy theories here — the law is clear that this kind of imagery is illegal. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/151 https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/151

soulofmischief 2y ago
It's not misinformed or incorrect. I'm aware of the current law and how it stand in opposition to the first amendment. Reread my post. > There is no need to engage in conspiracy theories here Please do not mischaracterize my post in such a light. There are no conspiracy theories here. There are ongoing, completely public, campaigns by both the Executive and Legislative branch to regulate access to generative models. There is a reason this press release vaguely uses the term "deepfake", which is completely distinct from dragging and dropping a minor's face onto an adult's body. Whether that reason is deliberate or negligent, it still serves the greater purpose. The debate over access to generative models with respect to CSAM has been hot for a while now, to ignore that debate and characterize my post as perpetuating conspiracy theories is just disingenuous.
- ritwikgupta 2y ago
  1. The PROTECT Act provisions have repeatedly been upheld by both appellate the Supreme Court as constitutional as long as the CSAM in question meets the Miller or Ferber standards. Either the law is constitutional, or you’re proposing that the courts are illegitimate, the latter of which is conspiratorial. 2. You are right that there is a campaign to limit access to open source generative AI models, but it is not an initiative led by the government. Companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are leading the charge when it comes to emphasizing the danger of open source models and are lobbying every day to limit access. The executive and legislative branches are following suit with what industry executives tell them because they are deferred to as experts. Industry policy teams have invented vague, ill-defined terms such as “frontier models” and equate these models as having the same power as nuclear weapons. They have a vested interest in being the sole controllers of this technology. If you want to counter governmental efforts to limit access to such models, start by countering the FUD pushed by industry in this space.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    > The PROTECT Act provisions have repeatedly been upheld by both appellate the Supreme Court as constitutional as long as the CSAM in question meets the Miller or Ferber standards. Either the law is constitutional, or you’re proposing that the courts are illegitimate, the latter of which is conspiratorial. I'm sorry, but it is absolutely not "conspiratorial" to suggest that the judicial system is compromised. You have to be living under a rock to not understand that all three branches of government are effectively compromised to party-line political agendas backed by corporations, NGOs, etc. Our forefathers would have spit in disgust at the idea of the bill of rights being perverted to the point that drawing the wrong lines on a piece of paper and keeping it in one's own home calls for removing one's liberty and placing them in prison. And this extends to modern technology such as image editors. And I stress, we are talking about production/possession, not distribution. There is actually a case for restricting distribution of such material. Generally speaking, only a fool could look around at the state of the US government and say, "the laws are just and anyone who questions their justness is conspiratorial." That is textbook gaslighting, whether you intend for it or not. > You are right that there is a campaign to limit access to open source generative AI models, but it is not an initiative led by the government. Again, calling bullshit. [0] Our government is in the business of staying in business, at the expense of individual liberty. This is well established going back decades. I'm not even going to argue that point with you. And because of this, they will absolutely treat foundational models with the same playbook as cryptography in the 90's if they feel like it's necessary. [1] The government already did all of this with cryptography, and it was a war hard won. So you have to make the airtight case that they won't do it again. Not the other way around. You have to prove that they have changed for the better. I don't have to prove anything because history is on my side. Please, I beg of you, do not delude yourself that the US government wants what is best for you, while they are spending billions bombing hospitals overseas with tax dollars that could greatly benefit our own citizens. Do not delude yourself that it is just corporations, or just the government. It is CorpGov. They are, in the end, one in the same, in that they play ball when it suits them, and play against each other when it suits them. Don't be a sucker. And please don't accidentally gaslight others by throwing out accusations of conspiratorialism the moment they question the credibility of the US government. I expect any followup response to dispense with the gaslighting and ad hominem, and focus on fostering a constructive debate. If you can't do that, just end the conversation here and do some hard thinking. [0]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/29/biden-harris-administration-announces-key-ai-actions-180-days-following-president-bidens-landmark-executive-order/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

rustcleaner 2y ago

>Not that it matters, the possession of either are clearly protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution, as no individual was harmed during the production of such material. Wrong. Men are sitting decades for pen and paper art. I read more details, Smelko was caught up in someone else's search warrant. Arguably Smelko did nothing directly other than being at the wrong place/time to set off the chain of events which lead to his 15 year sentence. This is why I eagerly await jury duty notices, had I been on Smelko's trial I would have no-reason acquitted (known as jury nullification).

soulofmischief 2y ago
Not wrong. Reread the post. I said "clearly protected by the first amendment". That doesn't mean that our government hasn't enacted laws which go against the constitution. They do this all the time, it just goes unchallenged in the higher courts. And even the higher courts can be compromised. I'm speaking on legal consistency. I know people are sitting in jail for drawings, why do you think I'm making this case in the first place?
- fiso64 2y ago
  >I know people are sitting in jail for drawings People are taking this for granted but I have yet to see an actual case. Every time this topic appeared on HN it also turned out that the offender had real CSAM on his devices as well.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    I don't personally know of any specific cases but I think it's sufficient to recognize that some countries, such as Canada, outright criminalize lolicon and other drawn material, and that the chilling effect alone is enough to push back. I've personally brushed against the effects of these laws while operating and moderating international discussion forums and boards, because it's easiest just to outright ban the stuff than deal with a myriad of laws across each country. And that doesn't even get into individual state laws.
  - 2y ago