4 ms·

Hey, so not trying to troll... I feel like that has to be stated when talking about this stuff. I get that weaponizing revenge porn someone sent you can be dam

Hey, so not trying to troll... I feel like that has to be stated when talking about this stuff. I get that weaponizing revenge porn someone sent you can be damaging. But I don't get what this law is trying to do. Is Hustler v. Falwell still valid? > In the case, Hustler magazine ran a full-page parody ad against televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr., depicting him as an incestuous drunk who had sex with his mother in an outhouse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell As long as it's labeled "AI Generated" in the corner, does that make it OK? What if a person wanted to generate porn of Eva Braun & Adolf Hitler -- who knows, just for the shock value... would that be banned? Even if it's a snuff film? I can think of a bunch of things that aren't full on traditional porn... can I still make a video of Katy Perry eating a banana? Can I show Hugh Jackman making out with John C. McGinley (as Dr. Cox, of course)? Or what if I wanted a video of Elizabeth Hurley doing ASMR in a bikini, or in a burqa? Falls back to, "What's porn, anyway?" is it still "I know it when I see it?" / "Anything that gives a judge an erection?" Or is it anything involving using AI to draw people? I make a drawing on Civitai... can someone come up and say, "That looks like my great aunt Trudy, take it down now!" We've had Photoshop forever... I get that AI is maybe (emphasis on maybe) a bit more realistic than Photoshop. But to me, a law like this feels like it'll have unintended and far reaching connotations for how we use AI to create scenes from each of our own vivid and unique imaginations.

trey-jones 2y ago
My answer to pretty much everything these days is "it's all marketing." The lawmakers need to be seen as though they are doing something about what they perceive as a hot topic these days. However, most laws have some vagueness about them, and, as intended, I believe it will fall to the courts to interpret the law.
kylebenzle 2y ago
You are correct, this new law is absolute nonsense and shows a complete misunderstanding of the technology. All your examples are now indeed "illegal" to produce except the one involving only Hugh Jackman and John McGinley kissing as this law is ONLY about "protecting women" and "women's bodily autonomy" unfortunately AOC seems to think men don't have bodies apparently?
- kstrauser 2y ago
  The actual text of the bill doesn’t mention gender. It affects fake depictions of men, too.
  - kylebenzle 2y ago
    I'm glad the, Violence Against Women Act, "doesn't mention gender", thank you for letting me know.
    - dang 2y ago
      Can you please stop posting ideological battle comments to HN? You've been doing it a lot again lately, and we have to ban such accounts. I don't want to ban you again but if this keeps up we're going to have to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dbg31415 2y ago
  Just read the actual law... it says "identifiable individual" in the language -- so men and women (and anyone else!). It also limits the damage-seeking to "intimate" material, but doesn't really explain what intimate means. It also says you can't make the visual depiction, even you put "This is an AI fake" on it. > DIGITAL FORGERY.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:83d22542-02aa-46d7-befe-b26e23ffa1e7 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:83d22542-02aa-46... A law like this would have 100% clashed with the ruling of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988). I don't know who else remembers the 80s... but Tipper Gore and Nancy Reagan were the bad guys. Censorship, no matter who it is supposed to help, will be twisted by those looking to silence their opponents. Dee Snider's speech before Congress is as relevant now as it was then. "There is no authority who has the right, and necessary insight to make these judgements..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Vyr1TylTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Vyr1TylTE
codekisser 2y ago
The law is about "digital forgeries" in general - trying to pass off any computer-generated fake as authentic - but they're marketing this as just the "deepfake porn law" for voter popularity.
amiga386 2y ago
The act's text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3696/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/369... It modifies US Code section 6851: Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6851%20edition:prelim) http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6... The existing law allows a person with standing to bring a civil action against distributors of commercial pornography. This act amends that to not just include the commercial pornographer having actual pictures/video of the person, but also if they generate realistic pictures/video of the person. Hitler and Braun are both dead, so they lack standing. Falwell's case did not include an "intimate visual depiction" so he also couldn't bring a civil action under this section of the code. The requirement of "intimitate visual depiction" would also let you away with Katy Perry's fruit consumption, and provided there are no genitals, anuses, sexual fluids, etc. you could depict Jackman and McGinley... you could also be safe and render it as a cartoon, as the depiction has to be "indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual"

trey-jones 2y ago

My answer to pretty much everything these days is "it's all marketing." The lawmakers need to be seen as though they are doing something about what they perceive as a hot topic these days. However, most laws have some vagueness about them, and, as intended, I believe it will fall to the courts to interpret the law.

kylebenzle 2y ago

You are correct, this new law is absolute nonsense and shows a complete misunderstanding of the technology. All your examples are now indeed "illegal" to produce except the one involving only Hugh Jackman and John McGinley kissing as this law is ONLY about "protecting women" and "women's bodily autonomy" unfortunately AOC seems to think men don't have bodies apparently?

kstrauser 2y ago
The actual text of the bill doesn’t mention gender. It affects fake depictions of men, too.
- kylebenzle 2y ago
  I'm glad the, Violence Against Women Act, "doesn't mention gender", thank you for letting me know.
  - dang 2y ago
    Can you please stop posting ideological battle comments to HN? You've been doing it a lot again lately, and we have to ban such accounts. I don't want to ban you again but if this keeps up we're going to have to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dbg31415 2y ago
Just read the actual law... it says "identifiable individual" in the language -- so men and women (and anyone else!). It also limits the damage-seeking to "intimate" material, but doesn't really explain what intimate means. It also says you can't make the visual depiction, even you put "This is an AI fake" on it. > DIGITAL FORGERY.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:83d22542-02aa-46d7-befe-b26e23ffa1e7 https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:us:83d22542-02aa-46... A law like this would have 100% clashed with the ruling of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988). I don't know who else remembers the 80s... but Tipper Gore and Nancy Reagan were the bad guys. Censorship, no matter who it is supposed to help, will be twisted by those looking to silence their opponents. Dee Snider's speech before Congress is as relevant now as it was then. "There is no authority who has the right, and necessary insight to make these judgements..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Vyr1TylTE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Vyr1TylTE

codekisser 2y ago

The law is about "digital forgeries" in general - trying to pass off any computer-generated fake as authentic - but they're marketing this as just the "deepfake porn law" for voter popularity.

amiga386 2y ago

The act's text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3696/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/369... It modifies US Code section 6851: Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6851%20edition:prelim) http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:6... The existing law allows a person with standing to bring a civil action against distributors of commercial pornography. This act amends that to not just include the commercial pornographer having actual pictures/video of the person, but also if they generate realistic pictures/video of the person. Hitler and Braun are both dead, so they lack standing. Falwell's case did not include an "intimate visual depiction" so he also couldn't bring a civil action under this section of the code. The requirement of "intimitate visual depiction" would also let you away with Katy Perry's fruit consumption, and provided there are no genitals, anuses, sexual fluids, etc. you could depict Jackman and McGinley... you could also be safe and render it as a cartoon, as the depiction has to be "indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual"