- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
You must log in or # to comment.
I have mixed feelings about this prosecution of ai deepfakes.
Like obviously people should have protection against becoming a victim of such and perpetrators should be held accountable.
But the line “feds are currently testing whether existing laws protecting kids against abuse are enough to shield kids from AI harms” would be a incredibly dangerous precedent because those are mostly designed for actual physical sex crimes.
As wrong as it is to create and distribute ai generated sex imagery involving non consenting people it is not even remotely as bad as actual rape and distributing real photos.
Creating and distributing anything should be legal if no real person suffers during its creation and if it’s not intended at defamation, forgery, such things.
How do you litigate ‘intention’ in this way?
This is not a legal text, you little cheat.
This is a sentence in natural language, want me to start asking such questions about everything you write?
If you make a deepfake of someone and share it, then it’s defamation. Taking a picture voluntarily shared and editing it is not a crime.
By litigate I mean, if a person is creating something and says they don’t plan to distribute it, do we take their word for it?
If it ends up getting distributed anyway, should we take their word that it was an accident?
We consider people’s private data important enough that if you leak it even by mistake you are on the hook for that. You have a responsibility.
I think that rather than framing this as something harmless unless distributed and therefore intent to distribute matters, we should treat it as something you have a responsibility not to create because it will be harmful when it is inevitably distributed.
My understanding is that intention is not uncommonly litigated; I believe the question of “intent to deceive” is central to trademark law, for example. That’s also what the the “degrees” of murder etc are about.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. I do read an awful lot of contacts and talk to lawyers.
Can you share a full-body shot of yourself please? Don’t worry, you won’t suffer while it gets used to create other content that we’ll distribute to your friends, family, classmates, coworkers, etc.
You first.
EDIT: Also I weren’t talking about pics of real people.
Oh, so “anything” doesn’t mean what it used to mean?
I said “defamation”. If you are not capable of reading, that’s not my fault.
That’s why I’m ancap, you can’t deal with such chimp crowds without private tanks.
K dude.
“Deepfakes” are edited pictures of real people. I’d be more inclined to agree with you on completely AI generated images but not something specifically intended to deceive others into thinking they’re viewing a real person’s image.
Deepfakes are, however the top-level comment I was answering was not limited to deepfakes. And as my further discussion with its author shows, they too didn’t mean only deepfakes.
Their opinion was that any kind of pornography portraying children, even if it’s not shared with others and not based on pics of real people, should be prosecuted just like making real child pornography.
You know, this thread has once again reinforced me in my opinion that the best system of government is Aspie Reich. Only people with Aspergers should be allowed to make laws and judge and hold public posts. The rest of fucking chimps just don’t have what it takes to override their chimp instincts.
You would be fine with AI-gen porn images of your teenage daughter being distributed around the internet?
I take it, the word “defamation” is not part of your lexicon.
The issue being discussed does not fall under defamation.
Making forged pics of someone else falls under defamation.
It’s very clearly not rape, sexual abuse, child pornography or non-consensual pornography.
Welcome to the internet.
Even knowing what Internet is, I sometimes try to pretend the other side is arguing in good faith.
I mean, it’s as if someone pushed me and I would try to sue them for cutting my hand off. With that hand present.
I would understand the “this punishment is not enough, we have to do more” sentiment, but instead of “more” they are trying to alias a different action with an existing action with harsher punishment.
Bruh how is creating and distributing a non-consensual nude-ified picture of a young girl not a cause for suffering for the victim? Please, explain that to the class.
Did you just not go to school as a kid? If so, that would explain your absolute ineptitude on this topic. Your opinion is some real “your body, my choice” kind of energy.
There’s a legitimate discussion to be had about harm reduction here. You’re approaching this topic from an all-or-nothing mindset but there’s quite a bit of research indicating that’s not really how it works in practice. Specifically as it relates to child pornography the argument goes that not allowing artificial material to be created leads to an increase in production of actual child pornography which obviously means more real children are being harmed than would be if other forms were not controlled in the same fashion. The same sort of logic could be applied to revenge porn, stolen selfies, or whatever else we’re calling the kind of thing this article is referring to. It may not be an identical scenario but I still think it would be fair to say that an AI generated image is not as damaging as a real one.
That is not to say that nothing should be done in these situations. I haven’t decided what I think the right move is given the options in front of us but I think there’s quite a bit more nuance here than your comment would indicate.
I think this is probably a really good point. I have no issue with AI generated images, although obviously if they are used to do an illegal thing such has harassment or defamation, those things are still illegal.
I’m of two minds when it comes to AI nudes of minors. The first is that if someone wants that and no actual person is harmed, I really don’t care. Let me caveat that here: I suspect there are people out there who, if inundated with fake CP, will then be driven to ideation about actual child abuse. And I think there is real harm done to that person and potentially the children if they go on to enact those fantasies. However I think it needs more data before I am willing to draw a firm conclusion.
But the second is that a proliferation of AI CP means it will be very difficult to tell fakes from actual child abuse. And for that reason alone, I think it’s important that any distribution of CP, whether real or just realistic, must be illegal. Because at a minimum it wastes resources that could be used to assist actual children and find their abusers.
So, absent further information, I think whatever a person whats to generate for themselves in private is just fine, but as soon as it starts to be distributed, I think that it must be illegal.
It may not be an identical scenario but I still think it would be fair to say that an AI generated image is not as damaging as a real one.
“The deepfakes are often used to extort, harass or bully minors, she says, and are easy to make because of the many sites and apps that will “nudify” an image.”
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/deepfake-minors-porn-explicit-images-1.7385099
Read my comment again.
Your opinion is some real “your body, my choice” kind of energy.
My advice to you would be to improve your reading comprehension before judging this way.
In particular, the word “defamation”.
Nobody was “abused” this is out of hand. suspend the kid or whatever that did it, some kind of school punishment, but jail? And lawsuits over some ai images? Crazy.
The lawsuit was about the fact the school knew for months about the problem and did nothing to address it. If they plausibly couldn’t know, it wouldn’t have been their fault but this was reported to the admin repeatedly and they did nothing.
Exactly this, and rightly so. The school’s administration has a moral and legal obligation to do what it can for the safety of its students, and allowing this to continue unchecked violates both of those obligations.
Is in-person harassment not abuse anymore?
researchers concluded that “outlawing all deepfakes is unrealistic and unfeasible”—especially since all the harmful AI-generated images that are already out there are likely to “remain online indefinitely.”
Just think a little bigger:
It must be a crime to have the harmful material.
Have it on your PC or phone —> goto jail.
Have it in your online account —> goto jail.
Be a service provider and have it on your server —> goto jail.This will reduce the stuff.
yuppp, exactly like in North Korea.
nice !
You really haven’t thought this through. What happens if I email you a bunch of illegal pictures? Guess we’re both going to jail.
Oh but I don’t need to think too much through it. It is pretty much the legal situation in Germany (and probably several other European countries). There may be some edge cases that I don’t know.
Of course, if you send stuff to me, then you are the first of the evil ones :) and if I can convince the judge that I did not know and did not want (!) the stuff (and by the way, how did they even know about it? Even before I had the chance to delete it?), there will be room for a reasonable decision.
This will also make it trivial to target someone and have them sent to jail. I could literally post an image, right now, and it would be on your current device. Using your logic, you’d be liable and on your way to jail.
Title is misleading?
An AI-generated nude photo scandal has shut down a Pennsylvania private school. On Monday, classes were canceled after parents forced leaders to either resign or face a lawsuit potentially seeking criminal penalties and accusing the school of skipping mandatory reporting of the harmful images.
Classes are planned to resume on Tuesday, Lancaster Online reported.
So the school is still in operation.
Arstechnica doesn’t cite its sources? All it has are links to more Arstechnica articles.
The above article says,
In the US, the feds are currently testing whether existing laws protecting kids against abuse are enough to shield kids from AI harms.
…but doesn’t cite any sources. There’s an embedded link, back to Arstechnica. What the fuck?
In the article refers to “cops” and “feds”. The overall tone of the writing sounds like a high school student wrote it.
