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

61–70 of 72 posts

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

#61

Post by laurowyn »

dralley wrote: post #57
laurowyn wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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.

The quote was about the technology in general, not the specific application.

The technology has plenty of applications in CGI and trying to push through the uncanny valley. By no means am I claiming that a tool designed to generate sexually explicit material without consent is an appropriate use. But the fact is, technology is used and abused every day without having such huge sanctions put on it. What makes this any different? the fact it's new.

But it's not a new trend by any means. 20 years ago, 'x-raying' was a thing. Photoshop someone to look like their clothes are transparent. Or the bubbles effect, using circles cut out of a mask layer to hide clothing to make the image look like a nude without showing anything explicit.

The fact is outlawing technology just means something new will turn up to replace the old. Whereas making the end product illegal to possess and/or distribute gives a far more beneficial power to law enforcement and the legal system. "I'm sorry officer, these were generated using a different tool, so they're actually legal" or "you can't prove what tool was used to create them" would be perfectly viable defences if the tool is outlawed, vs the act itself.

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

#62

Post by a_f »

tester34 wrote: post #19
Tycho wrote: post #10

Just wait till the AI visual paternity tests get here.

wow, at first glance it seems like decent startup idea it removes all overhead of DNA tests

Yeah I think it's a great idea for a site/service much akin to the OP. I imagine there would be a big draw just sticking in famous parents and kids to see if there is a match.

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

#63

Post by pjc50 »

sofixa wrote: post #59
pjc50 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lite…

Yes, but that's a strong contrast with the US, where he was invited to speak.

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

#64

Post by oliwarner »

pjc50 wrote: post #18
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.

Note that this is already an offense in Scotland. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/section/2 > A person (“A”) commits an offense if— > (a)A discloses, or threatens to disclose, a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show , another person (“B”) in an intimate situation, > (b)by doing so, A intends to cause B fear, alarm or distress or A is reckless as to whether B will be caused fear, alarm or distr…

Does an AI generated image fall under their definition of a photograph?

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

#65

Post by pjc50 »

oliwarner wrote: post #64
pjc50 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this is already an offense in Scotland. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/section/2 > A person (“A”) commits an offense if— > (a)A discloses, or threatens to disclose, a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show , another person (“B”) in an intimate situation, > (b)by doing so, A intends to cause B fear, alarm or distress or A is reckless as to whether B will be caused fear, alarm or distr…

Does an AI generated image fall under their definition of a photograph?

A definition of photograph is not provided in the text of the act, but I would guess "appears to show" covers this. There will probably have to be a test case. That is, if it looks like or is claimed to be a photograph it's covered.

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

#66

Post by read_if_gay_ »

howaboutnope wrote: post #43
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #31

Earlier 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…

> 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 o…

Cookie banners are utterly ineffective.

The websites create the problem in the first place, that's obvious, but lawmakers are apparently too incompetent to come up with effective solutions.

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

#67

Post by oliwarner »

pjc50 wrote: post #65
oliwarner wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does an AI generated image fall under their definition of a photograph?

A definition of photograph is not provided in the text of the act, but I would guess "appears to show" covers this. There will probably have to be a test case. That is, if it looks like or is claimed to be a photograph it's covered.

A real, light-capture photograph can be of an innocent situation appears compromising. Angles, hidden partitions, even a hand temporarily over the wrong place.

The "appears to show" applies to the act captured, not the medium, AFAICS.

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

#68

Post by oliwarner »

oliwarner wrote: post #64
pjc50 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this is already an offense in Scotland. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2016/22/section/2 > A person (“A”) commits an offense if— > (a)A discloses, or threatens to disclose, a photograph or film which shows, or appears to show , another person (“B”) in an intimate situation, > (b)by doing so, A intends to cause B fear, alarm or distress or A is reckless as to whether B will be caused fear, alarm or distr…

Does an AI generated image fall under their definition of a photograph?

Other laws explicitly define pseudo-photographs (eg: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/37/section/7) so I would suggest that this law does not include photo-realistic computer-generated images.

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

#69

Post by Dracophoenix »

eru wrote: post #53
sierpinsky wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You wouldn't even need to be clever. Use a bunch of stock photos mixed in with the target photo, use a Co-pilot-level GAN to "sort" the bodily features of this photo in a way that would suit your liking and - voila!- "It's an algorithmic choice. It can't be helped". That or anime-ification.

But none of this would be needed if people respected freedom of speech. No person should be obligated to abstain from composing the digital equivalent of a nude statue because it can resemble a living person. One shouldn't even be a need to ask what happens when satire and sexuality are policed. Anyone who has been reading the news over the past few decades would know the answer to that.

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

#70

Post by eru »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #69
eru wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You wouldn't even need to be clever. Use a bunch of stock photos mixed in with the target photo, use a Co-pilot-level GAN to "sort" the bodily features of this photo in a way that would suit your liking and - voila!- "It's an algorithmic choice. It can't be helped". That or anime-ification. But none of this would be needed if people respected freedom of speech. No person should be obligated to abstain from composing…

Well, I guess legality would depend on intent?
Post reply on HN