4 ms·

Do we really need the ability to create sexually explicit pictures of people? No right is absolute, and the reason I think this new law is needed is previously

Do we really need the ability to create sexually explicit pictures of people? No right is absolute, and the reason I think this new law is needed is previously it was extremely difficult to produce photorealistic pictures of people, while now it’s trivial.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
So what if it is possible to generate photorealistic pictures? It’s still just art. An algorithm doesn’t change that.
- geysersam 2y ago
  People are acting as if it wasn't possible to create realistic looking fake pornography featuring real people before diffusion models. Photoshop's been around for a while.
  - smcin 2y ago
    There is a pretty obvious difference between a) schoolchildren (esp. minors) cyberbullying their classmates/ex-BFs/ex-GFs/relatives/teachers with still images vs b) AI apps/porn sites/ advertisers with $$$ budgets for AI creating lifelike deepfake porn videos of celebrities or user submissions, for profit, intentionally, as a business model. You'd expect the full weight of the proposed Australian law would be used against the latter not the former. Depends how they implement it. Here [0] is a US Politico article on both the explosion of this happening in US schools, and the very fragmented state-level legislative and police response to US cases ("20 states have laws... who gets [/doesn't get] disciplined, how minors are treated and who is responsible for taking images to the police — varies widely depending on the state.") Also, there are obvious civil-liberties privacy considerations (just like the long-running CSAM debate) about who [in Australia] will be mandated to scan users' images: telecomms companies, tech companies, the police or all of these? [0]: Politico: "AI is shockingly good at making fake nudes — and causing havoc in schools" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-schools-states-00160183 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-s...
    - paulmd 2y ago
      that's generally the thrust of elvis laws, yes - I'm not sure they're coherent as a concept though. why is elvis impersonation "traditional" in a way that "dolly parton impersonation" is not? and let's not pretend like there wasn't always a significant commercial aspect, the elvis impersonator officiating your wedding wants to get paid.
      - smcin 2y ago
        I don't understand the downvotes and you're changing the topic from deepfake AI porn (whether by individuals (schoolchildren, adults, revenge porn) or AI apps/ advertisers/ social media) to Elvis laws (prohibitions against unauthorized commercial use of AI voice/image/name, e.g. musician soundalike, as passed by Tennessee in 2024). I'm not defending either cyberbullying or any particular set of laws (and the Australian one hasn't even had its wording published yet), I'm just pointing out each country or state will act(/not act) differently. For Australia, I wonder about their claim they had 2.7x as much deepfake-porn cyberbullying as other countries. (Is Australia using NGOs to drum up support for invasive govt powers which would be used more widely? Will govts worldwide use alarm about deepfake porn as a pretext for sweeping power grabs?) >2% of TN's economy is music industry, so it's inevitable the state legislature will attempt to protect that from AI job loss as is clearly happening in other audiovisual industries; courts and time will tell. > why is elvis impersonation "traditional" in a way that "dolly parton impersonation" is not? I never said that was the case, I don't even know that that's specifically the case, but given you say it is, why do you think that is the case, and how is that related to this discussion? (Does it depend on how permissive/aggressive the rightsholder historically was on enforcing copyright? or else what?) Anyway, Tennessee rushed out a law (which doesn't even go into effect until July 2024) which on the face of it is not intended to target (human) amateur tribute acts, but AI impersonation. Is it overkill, like some suggest the Australian proposed criminal law could turn out to be? Will it be unenforceable/ appealed/ overturned in the SC...? Will other music-industry states like FL, NY, GA pass similar legislation? It's quite likely many countries' or states' AI-related legislation (or lack of) will be incoherent, this sector is changing too fast.
jenadine 2y ago
Agreed. But is 7 years of jail for a joke the right punishment?
- Foobar8568 2y ago
  I don't see how it is a joke.
  - dudeinjapan 2y ago
    See: "Who's Nailin' Paylin?"
    - Foobar8568 2y ago
      It has nothing to do with this law.
      - dudeinjapan 2y ago
        I dunno have you seen it? I was pretty convinced that was actually Sarah Palin. Even had the same glasses.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Non-consensual deep fake porn is no joke. Although 7 years jail seems a bit ridiculous; this seems like it'd be more appropriate for the punishment to be a fine under most circumstances. I'm not sure what jail time is supposed to achieve here. This is probably going to pick up a lot of idiot teenagers.
  - throwaway290 2y ago
    Real non-consensual revenge/rape porn is even less of a joke and PornHub distributed it for years and earned from it in ads, allegedly refusing to take it down after victims requested it. Let's check how many of their execs spent even a month in jail, let alone 7 years... Not saying PH is Australia's business but if it was would they be behind bars for longer amount of time? If yes then at least it can be somewhat fair.
senectus1 2y ago
not saying either way, just that Australia has a habit of turning innocuous laws into clubs to beat people with.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

So what if it is possible to generate photorealistic pictures? It’s still just art. An algorithm doesn’t change that.

geysersam 2y ago
People are acting as if it wasn't possible to create realistic looking fake pornography featuring real people before diffusion models. Photoshop's been around for a while.
- smcin 2y ago
  There is a pretty obvious difference between a) schoolchildren (esp. minors) cyberbullying their classmates/ex-BFs/ex-GFs/relatives/teachers with still images vs b) AI apps/porn sites/ advertisers with $$$ budgets for AI creating lifelike deepfake porn videos of celebrities or user submissions, for profit, intentionally, as a business model. You'd expect the full weight of the proposed Australian law would be used against the latter not the former. Depends how they implement it. Here [0] is a US Politico article on both the explosion of this happening in US schools, and the very fragmented state-level legislative and police response to US cases ("20 states have laws... who gets [/doesn't get] disciplined, how minors are treated and who is responsible for taking images to the police — varies widely depending on the state.") Also, there are obvious civil-liberties privacy considerations (just like the long-running CSAM debate) about who [in Australia] will be mandated to scan users' images: telecomms companies, tech companies, the police or all of these? [0]: Politico: "AI is shockingly good at making fake nudes — and causing havoc in schools" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-schools-states-00160183 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-s...
  - paulmd 2y ago
    that's generally the thrust of elvis laws, yes - I'm not sure they're coherent as a concept though. why is elvis impersonation "traditional" in a way that "dolly parton impersonation" is not? and let's not pretend like there wasn't always a significant commercial aspect, the elvis impersonator officiating your wedding wants to get paid.
    - smcin 2y ago
      I don't understand the downvotes and you're changing the topic from deepfake AI porn (whether by individuals (schoolchildren, adults, revenge porn) or AI apps/ advertisers/ social media) to Elvis laws (prohibitions against unauthorized commercial use of AI voice/image/name, e.g. musician soundalike, as passed by Tennessee in 2024). I'm not defending either cyberbullying or any particular set of laws (and the Australian one hasn't even had its wording published yet), I'm just pointing out each country or state will act(/not act) differently. For Australia, I wonder about their claim they had 2.7x as much deepfake-porn cyberbullying as other countries. (Is Australia using NGOs to drum up support for invasive govt powers which would be used more widely? Will govts worldwide use alarm about deepfake porn as a pretext for sweeping power grabs?) >2% of TN's economy is music industry, so it's inevitable the state legislature will attempt to protect that from AI job loss as is clearly happening in other audiovisual industries; courts and time will tell. > why is elvis impersonation "traditional" in a way that "dolly parton impersonation" is not? I never said that was the case, I don't even know that that's specifically the case, but given you say it is, why do you think that is the case, and how is that related to this discussion? (Does it depend on how permissive/aggressive the rightsholder historically was on enforcing copyright? or else what?) Anyway, Tennessee rushed out a law (which doesn't even go into effect until July 2024) which on the face of it is not intended to target (human) amateur tribute acts, but AI impersonation. Is it overkill, like some suggest the Australian proposed criminal law could turn out to be? Will it be unenforceable/ appealed/ overturned in the SC...? Will other music-industry states like FL, NY, GA pass similar legislation? It's quite likely many countries' or states' AI-related legislation (or lack of) will be incoherent, this sector is changing too fast.

jenadine 2y ago

Agreed. But is 7 years of jail for a joke the right punishment?

Foobar8568 2y ago
I don't see how it is a joke.
- dudeinjapan 2y ago
  See: "Who's Nailin' Paylin?"
  - Foobar8568 2y ago
    It has nothing to do with this law.
    - dudeinjapan 2y ago
      I dunno have you seen it? I was pretty convinced that was actually Sarah Palin. Even had the same glasses.
roenxi 2y ago
Non-consensual deep fake porn is no joke. Although 7 years jail seems a bit ridiculous; this seems like it'd be more appropriate for the punishment to be a fine under most circumstances. I'm not sure what jail time is supposed to achieve here. This is probably going to pick up a lot of idiot teenagers.
- throwaway290 2y ago
  Real non-consensual revenge/rape porn is even less of a joke and PornHub distributed it for years and earned from it in ads, allegedly refusing to take it down after victims requested it. Let's check how many of their execs spent even a month in jail, let alone 7 years... Not saying PH is Australia's business but if it was would they be behind bars for longer amount of time? If yes then at least it can be somewhat fair.

senectus1 2y ago

not saying either way, just that Australia has a habit of turning innocuous laws into clubs to beat people with.