Wow, talk about technology making hijab and similar clothes obsolete which will be a massive culture shock.
MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
21–30 of 72 posts
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#22More precisely, she wants the distribution of nudes without consent, real or faked, to be considered an offense. This isn't about the tool, but what's being done with it.
That doesn't seem like an accurate summary. The actual quotes address the generation of those images, not just the distribution:
> "Parliament needs to have the opportunity to debate whether nude and sexually explicit images generated digitally without consent should be outlawed, and I believe if this were to happen the law would change."
And it's about restricting the tools, not just what's done with them:
> "If software providers develop this technology, they are complicit in a very serious crime and should be required to design their products to stop this happening."
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#23More precisely, she wants the distribution of nudes without consent, real or faked, to be considered an offense. This isn't about the tool, but what's being done with it.
Taking this to an extreme: If an image is 100% generated and looks to be a nude of a human, from whom should consent be obtained? Especially if "this image is similar to me" is factored in, what degree of similarity makes an image a representation of a real person? We're not far from this being less about privacy and dignity, and being more about whether the idea of nudity is permitted.
From the person who appears to be depicted on it. Not that different from an image being a picture painted by an artist from memory/imagination, honestly. In the end, it basically boils down to having the rights on your appearance.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#24More precisely, she wants the distribution of nudes without consent, real or faked, to be considered an offense. This isn't about the tool, but what's being done with it.
Taking this to an extreme: If an image is 100% generated and looks to be a nude of a human, from whom should consent be obtained? Especially if "this image is similar to me" is factored in, what degree of similarity makes an image a representation of a real person? We're not far from this being less about privacy and dignity, and being more about whether the idea of nudity is permitted.
You could apply a similar argument to many laws. If a jury is convinced you tried to create and distribute a nude of person X, then you get convicted.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#25In America, the federal child pornography law applies only to depictions of an actual child (and you have to know it, for possession offenses, though that’s another matter). But the Justice Department has long taken the position that an image of a clothed child that’s altered to then make the child look nude—-they used to call these “morphed” images—-counts. I don’t think it’s ever been definitively resolved by the S…
That is not my understanding of the law at all.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#26Just wait till the AI visual paternity tests get here.
I'm guessing that won't help even if it becomes a reality. These days even proper paternity tests are useless if one end up on a birth certificate without his knowledge. You're still liable even if not guilty.
Edit: That being said... this naked faking app can cause of lot of problems in the workplace and home.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#27So... Streisand effect an accident that makes this capability more prevalent and disturbing?
OR
Streisand effect intentional to make this so common that it no longer draws attention
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#28In America, the federal child pornography law applies only to depictions of an actual child (and you have to know it, for possession offenses, though that’s another matter). But the Justice Department has long taken the position that an image of a clothed child that’s altered to then make the child look nude—-they used to call these “morphed” images—-counts. I don’t think it’s ever been definitively resolved by the S…
I mean, for decades you couldn't swear on TV (and still can't), so I feel like there's a "technically legal to possess, but illegal to send on the internet" avenue.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#29More precisely, she wants the distribution of nudes without consent, real or faked, to be considered an offense. This isn't about the tool, but what's being done with it.
Taking this to an extreme: If an image is 100% generated and looks to be a nude of a human, from whom should consent be obtained? Especially if "this image is similar to me" is factored in, what degree of similarity makes an image a representation of a real person? We're not far from this being less about privacy and dignity, and being more about whether the idea of nudity is permitted.
If you're hurting a real person by making naked pictures of them against their wishes, that should be what the law prevents. No matter what tricksy means you do it with. Whether it's photo manipulation, AI, or really skilled photorealistic oil painting, is immaterial.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking this to an extreme: If an image is 100% generated and looks to be a nude of a human, from whom should consent be obtained? Especially if "this image is similar to me" is factored in, what degree of similarity makes an image a representation of a real person? We're not far from this being less about privacy and dignity, and being more about whether the idea of nudity is permitted.
From the person who appears to be depicted on it. Not that different from an image being a picture painted by an artist from memory/imagination, honestly. In the end, it basically boils down to having the rights on your appearance.
Yes, but similarity is not uniquely owned... 2 people may have resemblance and one may have given consent. Does the other have a right to demand consent too?
Hypothetical example: A person who happens to look like Boris Johnson (PM of UK) consents to a nude depiction. Does the image require the consent of all other people who have resemblance to Boris Johnson, including Boris Johnson but also extending to people elsewhere on Earth that don't know him but definitely look like him?
If yes... then you have lost control of right on your appearance because now the rights are collectively owned by anyone with a resemblance.