Wow, next up Photoshop filters/brushes too?
You're sort of twenty years late, photoshop is already used to create fake nudes. It's not like it's even hard.
Where's the outcry over Photoshop?
MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
41–50 of 72 posts
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#42In 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 think in the UK non real depictions of child porn are already illegal.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#43Earlier 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…
> Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns
That's thanks to webmasters who want to track visitors on the first visit, instead, of, say, having an opt-in link somewhere in the footer. It's amazing how much FUD is spread about the GDPR, and it's ironic in context of accusing lawmakers of cluelessnes, who in this case demonstrated more clue than millions of people apparently have about their own job.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#44Earlier 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.
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.
I think this should only work if you could reasonably be assumed to be unaware of the existence of any look-a-likes (including the celebrity) you don't have a permission from.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#45Looking forward to seeing how this resolves. I remember when deepfakes first was released there was a group who would deepfake coworkers, Facebook friends, etc for a really low cost (like $100) as long as the target had a few hundred public photos. This is without consent as well, but it’s also not real. It seems like the equivalent of imagining people nude. Kind of creepy if I know it’s happening but not truly a vio…
It's blurry but I think in a way it is a violation of privacy in a similar way that other forms of harassment are. It's not quite the equivalent of imagining people nude as there is an artefact that can potentially cause its own pain when distributed.
That’s a good point in that the distribution is different.
Maybe the better analogy for imagining nude would be to just make an image and not show it to anyone. So the issue is commercialization or distribution.
In the future when we have digital consciousnesses running on Google or Amazon or whatnot, will we be prevented from imagining people nude without their consent because the mind will be replicated across multiple availability zones?
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#46In 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…
Actually SCOTUS has ruled that laws banning obscene material are permitted under the 1st amendment.
There is 3 part test.
The SCOTUS actually heard appeals on the "obscenity" of material on a case by case basis for a while decades back.
More specific to this case is the PROTECT act [1]. I don't know whether it's every been ruled against or whether SCOTUS has accepted that all depictions of minors are obscene...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...
(see the US under Grey Area.)
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#47In 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 think in the UK non real depictions of child porn are already illegal.
Chris Morris did an interesting satirical piece on this in Brass Eye where he placed photos of children alongside slightly less savory material and asked the former head of the Obscene Publications Branch if they were illegal or not: https://youtu.be/RcU7FaEEzNU?t=1016
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#48How effective could it be short of an international convention? Reality is, unless most countries ban it, it's gonna be on the internet.
Depends if they care about commercial or non-commercial stuff. Banning commercial use of software is fairly easy (tell the gatekeepers to disallow it, or at the very least to let the police find who did it); banning non-commercial isn’t strictly impossible, but I recon to be effective it would need governments to treat international internet connections like any other international border, and they are not prepared for the side-effects of doing that.
Most people don’t grok computers, so a commercial ban would probably cover most people, yet Bush-bin-Laden photoshop I saw back in the early noughties would still get made and shared.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#49Earlier 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…
> ... 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.
Digitally is/has become synonymous with "on a computer" or "algorithmically" because we do not have any non-digital computers to which we refer to as computers.
Re: MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
So just delete the exif data, and we're back to square one.