Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#31

Post by read_if_gay_ »

jsnell wrote: post #22
JulianMorrison wrote: post #4

More 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 sof…

> should be required to design their products to stop this happening.

How?

How are you going to stop people from sharing images of what your software produced?

There might be more context to this quote but is insane how out of touch lawmakers often appear to be with respect to technology. Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns which completely nullify the idea behind them.

How do we create working legislation for technology?

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#32

Post by eru »

Joker_vD wrote: post #23
buro9 wrote: post #17

Earlier 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.

There are lot of look-alikes in the real world.

I wonder whether saying that you based your nude on Joe Smith who you got consent from, would count as a defense? Even if Joe Smith happens to look like some celebrity that you didn't get permission from.

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#33

Post by dspillett »

buro9 wrote: post #17
JulianMorrison wrote: post #4

More 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 an image is 100% generated, from whom should consent be obtained?

This isn't talking about 100% generated content. It is talking about instances where apps (either automated examples like the one named or photo editing suites) are used to manipulate an image of a real person to make it look like they are naked.

Would you want a convincing an image of yourself in your birthday suit out there?

Or to take it a bit further, if that image that makes it look like you attended a party with Trump & Epstein in such a state?

Even if it were possible to argue no privacy had been invaded because that isn't really the person's naked form, there is the potential reputational damage to consider, both professional and personal.

Obviously fake nudes have been a thing for a long time, even convincing ones, but the issue was limited by an amount of time and/or skill being required. The newer tech available in certain apps today makes it very easy to make truly convincing images.

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#34

Post by mabub24 »

buro9 wrote: post #17
JulianMorrison wrote: post #4

More 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.

Are these images 100% generated, or are they generated from a "seed" image with the express intention to emulate a likeness with that original image such that the generated image is intended to be indistinguishable from the original subject of the original image? (Note: art is not under the microscope here, a computer program is.)

I think your second sentence trips back into the distinction the parent comment is making. When people post themselves nude, no one cares (barring some specific contexts); but, if someone posts a picture of you nude without your consent, then you probably care and consider it a violation of your privacy. The question of whether nudity is permitted is not really at question. What is, is whether computer programs that generate nude images for express purposes of making the real or generated image indistinguishable from a self-posted image is a violation of consent and privacy laws.

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#35

Post by rlpb »

buro9 wrote: post #30
Joker_vD wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 else…

Identical twins might be another example. What happens if one twin wants to make money selling adult content, and the other twin does not consent?

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#36

Post by dannyw »

sorokod wrote: post #15

There is a continuum there between harmless to deeply offensive. The exact location in the continuum will at the very least depend on the person being subjected to this treatment and the cultural context. The "AI" aspect will amplify the offense because of how life-like the end result can be.

also its a cultural thing. if i make AI that turns political figures into burglars, that's legally okay.

But something about nudity makes it different.

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#37

Post by tester34 »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #31
jsnell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sof…

> should be required to design their products to stop this happening. How? How are you going to stop people from sharing images of what your software produced? There might be more context to this quote but is insane how out of touch lawmakers often appear to be with respect to technology. Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns which completely nullify the idea behind them. How do we creat…

Store who, where and what kind of image has generated with your tool and attach metadata to file like EXIF

I guess?

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#38

Post by mattashii »

jsnell wrote: post #22
JulianMorrison wrote: post #4

More 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 sof…

> ... sexually explicit images generated digitally without consent should be outlawed ...

So, if I were to run DeepSukebe on an analog AI chip the generated pictures would be totally fine to distribute?

It seems to me that this should instead be 'images generated without consent'; that is, without specifying how this can be generated.

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#39

Post by azornathogron »

buro9 wrote: post #17
JulianMorrison wrote: post #4

More 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.

"Image rights" or "personality rights" are already a thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

It seems right to me that you should not be able to publish something that looks like a recording of person X doing/saying/participating in something, without either getting the consent of person X, or making it very, very clear in the published material that it is a fake. (I'm not claiming this is how the law currently works; I'm not an expert on that)

For nudity and pornography I think there is an added twist that even if the viewer knows that it's fake, there is an element of violation of the real person there. I'm not quite sure where I would draw the line about that.

Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned

#40

Post by pjc50 »

dannyw wrote: post #28
isamuel wrote: post #14

In 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.

Indeed. And we're talking about the UK with no right of free speech; for years there was an opposition politician who was banned from speaking on television. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa...

(granted that was in the context of links to a terrorist organisation, but it shows how different the landscape is to the US)

Post reply on HN