3 ms·

Okay, but shouldn't you be able to edit the background of a photo that has a person with a bikini in it? Why couldn't they just disallow you to edit the actual

Okay, but shouldn't you be able to edit the background of a photo that has a person with a bikini in it? Why couldn't they just disallow you to edit the actual human body or the clothing?

Verdex 2y ago
Law of unintended consequences. Better to be safe than have to make sure your tool can't be inadvertently used as a blackmail generator. Consider the example given. A person in a bikini at the beach is a normal image that few find objectionable. Let's make it objectionable by only modifying the background. We modify the bikini picture's background to make the person appear in a strip club on the stage. Or we make the person appear in the bedroom of an ex. Blackmail generated by only modifying the background. I'm not 100% sure they're taking the right route, but given the complexity of the situation I certainly understand a cautious and conservative approach.
- itishappy 2y ago
  "Potentially useful for blackmail" applies to the whole damn field. A revealing outfit is not needed to edit an ex in to last night's photos.
- jerf 2y ago
  Yes. It may happen in this particular instance to conform to a right-wing religious stereotype, but it's actually arriving there via left-wing Silicon Valley liberalism meeting fear of bad press and "cancelling" from other more-or-less liberal news outlets. Another instance of some people's observations that ideology sometimes seems to form a circle moreso than a line. Which is not entirely true, but isn't entirely untrue either.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  >Law of unintended consequences. edit local businessman/politician into picture with Jeffrey Epstein. No nudity involved.
- thefz 2y ago
  > Law of unintended consequences. In the meantime, every predator/abuser on earth is sticking an airtag in some ex's car or purse, and everybody is OK with it. I agree with the parent. Why not make the tools capable of everything and just punish bad behavior instead of preemptively censoring users and their usage of the tool?
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    > In the meantime, every predator/abuser on earth is sticking an airtag in some ex's car or purse, and everybody is OK with it. No they're not, which is why Apple and Google got forced to implement "stalking detectors" as an addon to the operating systems and stuff like regular beeping for the tags. > Why not make the tools capable of everything and just punish bad behavior instead of preemptively censoring users and their usage of the tool? Law of numbers. Basically, to pull off a convincing nudifier or whatever you needed to be really good at Photoshop, and the tool itself had associated costs (for buying it or learning how to pirate it), which kept the number of fake nudity photos very low. But now, with AI services doing it for a few bucks, or apps/training weights being released that allow everyone with a reasonably recent NVIDIA GPU to pull it off on their own? The numbers of such abuse exploded, because the cost went down drastically.

Okay, but shouldn't you be able to edit the background of a photo that has a person with a bikini in it? Why couldn't they just disallow you to edit the actual human body or the clothing?

Verdex 2y ago

Law of unintended consequences. Better to be safe than have to make sure your tool can't be inadvertently used as a blackmail generator. Consider the example given. A person in a bikini at the beach is a normal image that few find objectionable. Let's make it objectionable by only modifying the background. We modify the bikini picture's background to make the person appear in a strip club on the stage. Or we make the person appear in the bedroom of an ex. Blackmail generated by only modifying the background. I'm not 100% sure they're taking the right route, but given the complexity of the situation I certainly understand a cautious and conservative approach.

itishappy 2y ago
"Potentially useful for blackmail" applies to the whole damn field. A revealing outfit is not needed to edit an ex in to last night's photos.
jerf 2y ago
Yes. It may happen in this particular instance to conform to a right-wing religious stereotype, but it's actually arriving there via left-wing Silicon Valley liberalism meeting fear of bad press and "cancelling" from other more-or-less liberal news outlets. Another instance of some people's observations that ideology sometimes seems to form a circle moreso than a line. Which is not entirely true, but isn't entirely untrue either.
bryanrasmussen 2y ago
>Law of unintended consequences. edit local businessman/politician into picture with Jeffrey Epstein. No nudity involved.
thefz 2y ago
> Law of unintended consequences. In the meantime, every predator/abuser on earth is sticking an airtag in some ex's car or purse, and everybody is OK with it. I agree with the parent. Why not make the tools capable of everything and just punish bad behavior instead of preemptively censoring users and their usage of the tool?
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > In the meantime, every predator/abuser on earth is sticking an airtag in some ex's car or purse, and everybody is OK with it. No they're not, which is why Apple and Google got forced to implement "stalking detectors" as an addon to the operating systems and stuff like regular beeping for the tags. > Why not make the tools capable of everything and just punish bad behavior instead of preemptively censoring users and their usage of the tool? Law of numbers. Basically, to pull off a convincing nudifier or whatever you needed to be really good at Photoshop, and the tool itself had associated costs (for buying it or learning how to pirate it), which kept the number of fake nudity photos very low. But now, with AI services doing it for a few bucks, or apps/training weights being released that allow everyone with a reasonably recent NVIDIA GPU to pull it off on their own? The numbers of such abuse exploded, because the cost went down drastically.