MP Maria Miller wants AI 'nudifying' tool banned • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by laurowyn » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 12:52 PM UTC

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…

>> "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."

so we should outlaw any piece of technology that can be misused?

This is what happens when technologically inept people make laws to regulate technology. By this standard, cameras should be outlawed in case they're used to take sexually explicit pictures without consent. Computers should be outlawed in case they're used to distribute anything illicit.

Outlawing the production (by any means) and/or distribution (by any means) of non-consensual, sexually explicit material should be enough. If someone can show evidence that someone has produced to shared such content, then that's enough to demonstrate the offence.

No need to go stopping the rest of us from using technology just because some disgusting excuse for a human decided to demonstrate some of the worst of humanity with said technology.

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

#52

Post by buro9 » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 1:00 PM UTC

JulianMorrison wrote: post #29

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.

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.

Agree on that... the intent behind it seems to be a big part of it.

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

#53

Post by eru » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 1:04 PM UTC

sierpinsky wrote: post #44

eru wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess you could do something like Clean Room Design. But you'd need go be clever to get around a jury / judge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

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

#54

Post by laurowyn » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

knipster wrote: post #27

So... 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

First one, then the other.

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

#55

Post by sofixa » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 1:10 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #40

dannyw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> And we're talking about the UK with no right of free speech

Come on now, no need to exaggerate. The UK has limits on free speech, as do most countries ( even the holier than thou US, if I'm not mistaken). You might consider them to be too much, but that doesn't mean there's no right of free speech.

In the example you're quoting, you're aware that the restrictions were on the political wing of what was basically a terrorist organisation ( IRA) with which the UK was in what was basically a (civil) war?

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

#56

Post by superkuh » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

villgax wrote: post #11

Wow, next up Photoshop filters/brushes too?

I believe Virgina has already passed legislation so broad and abstract as to make photoshop and other image editing tools illegal. Like most laws of this type it's not about stopping an immoral or illegal activity. It's about control of people in power's public image. It will only be enforced if you piss off someone rich or powerful.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter8/secti...

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

#57

Post by dralley » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

laurowyn wrote: post #51

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…

>> "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." so we should outlaw any piece of technology that can be misused? This is what happens when technologically inept people make laws to regulate technology. By this standard, cameras should be outlawed in case they're used to take sexually explicit picture…

I don't think this applies. Cameras are general tools that have many useful purposes. So are computers.

This is specifically an AI tool that creates fake nudes. Whatever useful, appropriate purposes for this tool (if any) exist - they pale in comparison to your examples.

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

#58

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #55

pjc50 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> And we're talking about the UK with no right of free speech Come on now, no need to exaggerate. The UK has limits on free speech, as do most countries ( even the holier than thou US, if I'm not mistaken). You might consider them to be too much, but that doesn't mean there's no right of free speech. In the example you're quoting, you're aware that the restrictions were on the political wing of what was basically a t…

> there's no right of free speech

I mean there's no encoded, constitutional right that cannot be superceded by ordinary legislation. There is the ECHR right to free speech, which has qualifications, but there is constant muttering from the Tory party about repealing ECHR. Which can be done by ordinary legislation.

> In the example you're quoting, you're aware that the restrictions were on the political wing of what was basically a terrorist organisation ( IRA) with which the UK was in what was basically a (civil) war?

Yes, I literally said that in my comment.

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

#59

Post by sofixa » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #58

sofixa wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And we're talking about the UK with no right of free speech Come on now, no need to exaggerate. The UK has limits on free speech, as do most countries ( even the holier than thou US, if I'm not mistaken). You might consider them to be too much, but that doesn't mean there's no right of free speech. In the example you're quoting, you're aware that the restrictions were on the political wing of what was basically a t…

> there's no right of free speech I mean there's no encoded, constitutional right that cannot be superceded by ordinary legislation. There is the ECHR right to free speech, which has qualifications, but there is constant muttering from the Tory party about repealing ECHR. Which can be done by ordinary legislation. > In the example you're quoting, you're aware that the restrictions were on the political wing of what w…

> I mean there's no encoded, constitutional right that cannot be superceded by ordinary legislation. There is the ECHR right to free speech, which has qualifications, but there is constant muttering from the Tory party about repealing ECHR. Which can be done by ordinary legislation.

So there is a right, which might get repealed some day by ordinary legislation with ordinary quorum. But it's still there.

> Yes, I literally said that in my comment.

There's a slight difference between "links to a terrorist organisation", which is pretty vague and can mean lots of things, to literally the political wing of a terrorist group.

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

#60

Post by mattashii » Wed, Aug 04, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

jimktrains2 wrote: post #49

mattashii wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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.

Yes, but it shouldn't matter whether I make pictures of others on my PC or by hand if the other didn't consent to me making those pictures. Regardless of the type of picture.