3 ms·

Good. I’m not a lawyer but “knowingly” seems to be a central point here. Does an AI image generator “know” it’s being asked to make a nude of Jane Smith? The pe

Good. I’m not a lawyer but “knowingly” seems to be a central point here. Does an AI image generator “know” it’s being asked to make a nude of Jane Smith? The person asking it certainly does. Does their “artist for hire”? If this makes it all but illegal for AIs to generate images of people in the general case (e.g. outside a Hollywood studio using it for their own actors per contract), fine. So be it. Nothing of value would be lost. “Oh no, I can’t add an uncanny valley picture to my blog” is a small price to pay for “I can’t get deepfakes of Taylor Swift anymore”. I’m usually far on the other side of things like that, like Congress’s endless requests to make cell phones detect nudity in text messages. I guess it’s mainly that I don’t see value in AI generated pictures of humans. Having that capability hasn’t improved anything that I can see.

jrm4 2y ago
It's much more narrow than that, if you read it. It appears to be "knowingly make the naughty picture and also know that it's directly tied to a person and that it's naughty"
- kolanos 2y ago
  There does not appear to be a "naughty" provision only an "intimate" one. What qualifies as "intimate"? Seems dangerously broad.
  - Laremere 2y ago
    The bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7569/text/ih?format=xml https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7569... Which links to the legal code which is modified here: 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 original legal code defines "intimate visual depiction".
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Minus the naughty bits. The text doesn’t distinguish what the person’s doing. I suspect the courts will find that “make a picture of Jane Smith eating dinner” should have been caught: someone asked for it by name. If you provided a sufficiently detailed description of Jane, like you would to a police artist, and the end result ends up looking like Jane although she was never mentioned, that would seem a lot trickier to pin on the AI.
philipov 2y ago
Do you ask this question about whether a gun is able to "know" that it's shooting someone?
- kstrauser 2y ago
  No, nor of a paint brush. Those are dumb tools that do nothing without direct human action. I can’t tell a gun “shoot John Doe”. If I could, I’d likely be OK with a law holding the gun maker responsible for it. “You shouldn’t make guns that can target people by name” would be the analogous conversation to “you shouldn’t make machines that can crate fake images of humans by name”.

jrm4 2y ago

It's much more narrow than that, if you read it. It appears to be "knowingly make the naughty picture and also know that it's directly tied to a person and that it's naughty"

kolanos 2y ago
There does not appear to be a "naughty" provision only an "intimate" one. What qualifies as "intimate"? Seems dangerously broad.
- Laremere 2y ago
  The bill is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7569/text/ih?format=xml https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7569... Which links to the legal code which is modified here: 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 original legal code defines "intimate visual depiction".
kstrauser 2y ago
Minus the naughty bits. The text doesn’t distinguish what the person’s doing. I suspect the courts will find that “make a picture of Jane Smith eating dinner” should have been caught: someone asked for it by name. If you provided a sufficiently detailed description of Jane, like you would to a police artist, and the end result ends up looking like Jane although she was never mentioned, that would seem a lot trickier to pin on the AI.

philipov 2y ago

Do you ask this question about whether a gun is able to "know" that it's shooting someone?

kstrauser 2y ago
No, nor of a paint brush. Those are dumb tools that do nothing without direct human action. I can’t tell a gun “shoot John Doe”. If I could, I’d likely be OK with a law holding the gun maker responsible for it. “You shouldn’t make guns that can target people by name” would be the analogous conversation to “you shouldn’t make machines that can crate fake images of humans by name”.