3 ms·
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 tha
by 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 agoThere does not appear to be a "naughty" provision only an "intimate" one. What qualifies as "intimate"? Seems dangerously broad.
- Laremere 2y agoThe 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 agoMinus 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.