I suppose the only thing I disagree with is that the law can do anything about it. Obviously, you can go after sites that have money and/or a real business presence, a la Pornhub. But the rest? It’s the wild west.
I think it’s best that it be illegal so that we can at least have a reactive response to the problem. If someone abuses someone else by creating simulated pornography (by any means), we should have a crime to charge them with.
You can’t target the technology, or stop people from using AI to do perverted things, but if they get caught, we should at least respond to the problem.
I don’t know what a proactive response to this issue looks like. Maybe better public education and a culture that encourages more respect for others?
Removed by mod
I feel I was misconstrued. 1. a law will probably happen, and 2. it will do fuck all because the tool chain and posting/sharing process are going to be completely anonymous.
Yeah, in specific cases where you can determine deepfake revenge porn of Person A was posted by Person B who had an axe to grind, you might get a prosecution. I just don’t think the dudes making porn on their Nvidia GPUs of Gal Godot f*ckin Boba Fett are ever gonna get caught, and the celebrity cat will stay forever out of the bag.
deleted by creator
Making things illegal doesn’t solve anything in the WWW, principally cos there isn’t a world’s jurisdiction and cos illegality doesn’t stop criminals, see what happened to the war on drugs… just a big failure.
Maybe attacking the problem from the root like educating people to avoid porn at all could be successful at some point but anyway this it’s definitely another problem of the hiperconsumist capitalist scheme.
Edit: I believe if it were illegal even the price of it will go up so it will be a bigger business at the end of the day.
Making things illegal absolutely stops criminals. It doesn’t stop all criminals, but that’s never been the expectation. If you want to dismiss laws on the basis of not being 100% effective, there’s not a single law you support.
Yeah… I don’t think there is actually good proof that something being illegal actually stops a meaningful number of things on its own. There are plenty of studies that people do things that are socially frowned upon less IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE (say littering for example), but very weak evidence it stops such activity in any meaningful way in private settings. Likewise there is plenty of evidence that other forms of punishment (which is to say, no immediate social stigma) actually don’t really correlate with reduced activity at all.
I’m not under any obligation to prove it to you until you supply the “evidence” you’re mentioning. In the domain of rhetoric, “laws don’t dissuade criminals” people sounds dumb as fuck and goes against the way we’ve run societies for thousands of years.
I’ve witnessed laws – which frequently go hand in hand with your “socially frowned upon” acts – change peoples behaviour, from drink driving to your own littering example.
Every crime is a calculation of risk and reward. The internet makes things lower risk, but there are absolutely laws that work. They’re why the web isn’t riddled with child pornography and why online drug marketplaces have to exist behind 10 layers of bullshit.
You’re advocating that the risk should be nonexistent and that victims have no avenues for justice.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217455/
The Road Safety Act had a dramatic impact on Britain’s drivers. In the three months after it took effect, traffic fatalities dropped 23 percent in Britain. In the first year of the act, the percentage of drivers killed who were legally drunk dropped from 27 percent to 17 percent.
These general trends mask several specific changes in British drinking practices. Research showed that the act did not significantly change the amount people in Britain drank. Rather, the act seems to have affected a very narrow slice of behavior—the custom of driving to and from pubs, especially on weekend nights. After the act took effect, many regular customers took to walking to pubs. Pub owners raised a considerable outcry, and a number of less conveniently located pubs closed.
Unfortunately, the successes of the act were relatively short-lived. Within a few years, traffic fatalities again began to climb. By 1973 the percentage of drivers killed who were drunk was back to its pre-1967 level. By 1975, for reasons still unknown, this percentage had risen to 36 percent, considerably above what it was before the act.
Research has also shown that efforts to impose tougher penalties in America have not had much effect. In part, this seems to be caused by people’s belief that “it can’t happen to me.” “After all,” Reed observes, “those who currently drive drunk are not deterred by the small risk of a very severe penalty—accidental death.”
People gonna people.
Trying to educate people to avoid all porn sounds even less likely to be successful than trying to ban things on the internet, because you cant simply teach people to not get horny in response to certain visual stimuli, and trying to make people averse to depictions of anything sexual will just lead to a repressed society that still consumes porn but is even more embarrassed to talk about it, which causes more harm than good and still doesnt solve the problem at hand. Its also a misunderstanding of the issue anyway, because the problem isnt porn as a general concept, or even the use of AI to create it, but the creation of some that depicts real people against the wishes of those people, and secondarily the possibility that it could be used to make other people believe the event actually happened due to the ability to create photorealistic images and video.
Would banning it make it go away? No, of course not, but it would make it a bit riskier to make and spread, and that would reduce the number that do it. We already have certain kinds of porn banned due to requiring abuse to create, like CSAM, and while that certainly hasnt made it disappear, its not something one encounters regularly either. An argument of “we shouldnt ban this because bans dont work on the internet” would apply equally to our ban on that material too after all.
I believe it it were illegal, it wouldn’t be so popular and people would have to hide it more. Illegality would bring more barriers to use it and since people are lazy less poeple would be interested.
But personally I think the solution is for people to stop being so sensitive to nudity. If someone would post naked pictures of me I wouldn’t be happy, but either devastated. And if it were AI generated I could simply avoid it by saying that ain’t me.
If someone would post naked pictures of me I wouldn’t be happy, but either devastated. And if it were AI generated I could simply avoid it by saying that ain’t me.
How to tell everyone you are male, without saying it directly.
I agree that part of a way to deal with it socially is to not, like, ruin peoples lives when there are nude or pornographic images of them out there. When you lose your job because your ex posted a sex tape with you online and attached your name, and now you’re struggling to keep your house - that’s a devastating consequence, regardless of how someone personally feels about porn of them being online.
I think we should all be like “it could even just be AI” to our more conservative acquaintances when they’re worked up because someone posted gay porn of a local teacher in their group chat.
Yeah, it’s a hydra.
Cut off the head, 3 more grow back.
You can’t ban the tech but you can ban the act so it’s easier to prosecute people that upload deep fakes of their co-workers.
Removed by mod
Obviously, you can go after sites that have money and/or a real business presence, a la Pornhub. But the rest? It’s the wild west.
I was referring to that part of his comment. It is also not at all illegal in most countries. Its only illegal at state level in the US for example, and not for all of them either. Canada only has 8 provinces with legislation against it.
I do agree though that it’s not the softwares fault. Bad actors should be punished and nothing more.
I feel an easy and rational solution is to criminalize a certain category of defamation… presenting something untrue/fabricated as true/real or in a way that it could be construed as true/real.
Anything other than that narrow application is an infringement on the First Amendment.
I feel an easy and rational solution is to criminalize a certain category of defamation… presenting something untrue/fabricated as true/real or in a way that it could be construed as true/real.
I would love that solution, but it definitely wouldn’t have bipartisan support.
There are certain political groups that have a vested interest in lying, deceiving, manipulating, and fabricating to get what they want. So… yeah. 😞
Removed by mod
Exactly. Photoshop has been around for decades. AI is just more of the same. I find it weird how, as technology evolves, people keep fixating on the technologies themselves rather than the universal (sometimes institutional) patterns of abuse.
But that just is illegal already.
It’s not, though. Not remotely. At least not in the US.
Defamation of an individual (including “individual” entities like an org or business) is purely a civil matter, and defamation in a broader sense, such as against “antifa” or “leftists” or “jews” or “gays” et al, has no remedy whatsoever, civil or criminal.
Just another reason why we can’t ethically introduce AI.
Pandoras box has already been cracked way open. Shit is already in military application.
Can AIs really consent, though?
The issue is not with all forms of pornographic AI, but more about deepfakes and nudifying apps that create nonconsensual pornography of real people. It is those people’s consent that is being violated.
No-one cares if you consent to being drawn. The problem here isn’t the consent of the depicted person, it’s that the viewer is being misled. That’s why the moral quandary goes away entirely if the AI porn is clearly labeled as such.
I dont think that this is really true, I strongly suspect that most people I know would consider someone drawing porn of them without consent a majorly icky thing to do, and would probably consider someone doing that to someone else to be a creep for doing so. The reason such drawings are less an issue is at least partly that the barrier to entry is lower with AI, since it takes a certain amount of skill and time investment to draw something like that such as to be clearly recognizable as any specific real person.
Removed by mod
I mean, it did bother people, it just took more skill and time at using photo manipulation software to make it look convincing such that it was rare for someone to both have the expertise and be willing to put in the time, so it didnt come up often enough to be a point of discussion. The AI just makes it quick and easy enough to become more common.
Removed by mod
It literally is a one-click solution. People are running nudifying sites that use CLIP, GroundingDINO, SegmentAnything, and Stable Diffusion to autonomously nudify people’s pictures.
These sites (which I won’t even mention the names of), just ask for a decent quality photo of a woman wearing a crop top or bikini for best results.
The people who have the know-how to set up Stable Diffusion and all these other AI photomanipulation tools are using those skills to monetize sexual exploitation services. They’re making it so you don’t need to know what you’re doing to participate.
And sites like Instagram, which are filled with millions of exploitable images of women and girls, has allowed these perverted services to advertise their warez to their users.
It is now many orders of magnitude easier than it ever has been in history to sexually exploit people’s photographs. That’s a big deal.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Anyone could run it on their own computer these days, fully local. What could the government do about that even if they wanted to?
The govt’s job is not to prevent crime from happening, that’s dystopian-tier stuff. Their job is to determine what the law is, and apply consequences to people after they are caught breaking it.
The job of preventing crime from happening in the first place mainly belongs to lower-level community institutions, starting with parents and teachers.
Anyone can make CSAM in their basement, what could the government do about that even if they wanted to?
Anyone can buy a pet from a pet store, take it home and abuse it, why is animal abuse even illegal?
Should I keep going with more examples?
What do you want them to do, have constant monitoring on your computer to see what applications you open? Flag suspicious GPU or power usage and send police to knock on your door? Abusing people or animals requires real outside involvement. You are equating something that a computer generates with real life, while they have nothing to do with each other.
Who is suggesting that?
Murder is illegal, do we surveil everyone who owns a gun or knife?
CSAM is illegal, do cameras all report to the government?
Again, that’s just 2 examples. Lmk if you want more
Maybe my wording is unclear. I am wondering how they should be expected to detect it in the first place. Murder leaves a body. Abuse leaves a victim. Generating files on a computer? Nothing of the sort, unless it is shared online. What would a new regulation achieve that isn’t already covered under the illegality of ‘revenge porn?’ Furthermore, how can they possibly even detect anything beyond that without massive privacy breaches as I wrote before?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime
These are still crimes
