81–90 of 146 posts
[flagged]
Society is built around not destroying everything when you're angry. Hopefully that is easier when you're adult, but it's certainly the norm to expect it from children as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nevertheless there is almost a moral equivocation between images of sex and actual sex by some people. We are talking about restraining someone physically inside a 2 by 3 meter box for multiple years as a retribution for what is after all just pixels on a screen. (And by the way the implicit comparison here between an image of stalin and an image of a teenage girl is more apt than most would care to admit given the i…
“Just pixels on a screen” What is wrong with you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's the defense? Prosecution of AI operators for making indecent images of children?
Sure, but the reality is that if it happens abroad there is no legal recourse. Laws are not global, but the internet is. The only real option there is to close the internet. Or to elect me as god-emperor and unify the world under my rule.
[flagged]
I have kids. A significant part of raising them is showing/teaching them that feelings are natural, but only some outlets for those feelings are acceptable. My kids are younger than high school. Society is built around not destroying everything when you're angry. Hopefully that is easier when you're adult, but it's certainly the norm to expect it from children as well.
I used to be an instructor at a karate dojo, and several parents brought their kids to me, asking me to "do something" about their violent behavior. One of the children had been diagnosed with autism, but the rest hadn't even been evaluated by a doctor. The parents likely expected me to discipline them through fear and (possibly) corporal punishment, but I chose to instruct them relying solely on words until the very end.
However, it was futile. When I taught them that they must not hurt others or lash out, they would reply, "I understand." But the reality was that they had merely learned to say "I understand" whenever spoken to by an intimidating opponent they knew they couldn't beat.
Ultimately, every single case ended in disappointment. Consumed by a profound sense of powerlessness with the last child, I gave up teaching kids altogether.
You and your children are simply fortunate to possess the cognitive capacity to understand that making deepfakes is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't post innocuous images of children ever? Don’t raise boys who abuse girls. That’d be a big step in the right direction.
Because girls can never be abusive?
[0] https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/97-cent-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully we’ll get back to the time back when people didn’t have to worry about someone filming them all the time. Cameras cryptographically signing all photos and videos should become the standard. Media that cannot be traced back to real camera hardware should a priori be considered fake or tampered with. Still, deepfakes are partly a social problem and, as should be well known, social problems can rarely be solve…
That won't work, a camera can also photograph another screen or a fake printed photo. And also cryptographic modules can be cracked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully we’ll get back to the time back when people didn’t have to worry about someone filming them all the time. Cameras cryptographically signing all photos and videos should become the standard. Media that cannot be traced back to real camera hardware should a priori be considered fake or tampered with. Still, deepfakes are partly a social problem and, as should be well known, social problems can rarely be solve…
This is another example of treating normal behaviour as criminal. Like banning VPNs or age verification. How about we undo the radical individualism that has rotted out any compassion and empathy from society in the pursuit of greed? Not as easy to do granted, but it's a social technical debt that can't be quick fixed.
For example here the word "abuse" technically refers to the making and spreading of these images and attendant bullying, but obviously has connotations of actual sexual abuse:
>Despite all this, Radnor’s administration failed students in the days and weeks after it learned about the abuse,
This is maybe subtle but later the article gets more explicit about it:
>this technology [...] bears little difference from the non-consensual intimate imagery that’s plagued young girls and teenagers since the invention of the camera.
(i.e. a straightforward equation of images of nudity that did not happen, and images produced by actually pointing a camera at someone who is physically present with their nude body)
>Because the images aren’t “real,” authorities grapple with how to handle them.
Putting "real" in scare-quotes, very nice.
Dorfman is also quoted doing some nice sleight of hand, going in one sentence from "It was about the creation of the videos" to "and then share them with others as if the girls were something to be passed around." - i.e. equating the making of videos depicting unreal events with something that almost sounds like gang rape.
Anyway enough examples, article is full of them. I'm not saying there's no problem here, just that these people seem to have some kind of ideology of the sanctity of the image, i.e. a realistic image always depicts real events, and should always be interpreted as if it does. If it does not, clearly that's a problem to be corrected by reinforcing the connection between images and reality by making it impossible to produce realistic images of non-real things. It strikes me as exactly the wrong way to go about it, that can only make the bullying and harrassment (the actual problem which should be solved on the social level) worse by making its ammunition stronger.
(Slight aside but I do think the closing quote by Woelfel makes a good point)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel a little like a rebel every time I pay with cash. Funny that cd's are comparatively analog. (I get your meaning though).
Yeah, that's true, they are digital, but still feel "old". I was quite amazed while playing a vinyl record, accidentally lowered the volume down to 0, and could still literally hear a bit of sound coming out, not from the speakers, from the needle touching the record. Then I remembered that it's the actual sound waves that are engraved in the record. Amazing stuff
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are teenage girls, not adult men. This isn’t graffiti, but highly realistic sexual depictions. There’s a massive difference.
Nevertheless there is almost a moral equivocation between images of sex and actual sex by some people. We are talking about restraining someone physically inside a 2 by 3 meter box for multiple years as a retribution for what is after all just pixels on a screen. (And by the way the implicit comparison here between an image of stalin and an image of a teenage girl is more apt than most would care to admit given the i…
I don't have sex in front of my friends and family for a reason, and I would appreciate my privacy protected by the state. And yes, privacy breach of this magnitude is probably worth 2-3 years (which basically means nothing for the first offense, let's be realistic, but makes the second offense way more consequencial).