Apps That Use AI to Undress Women in Photos Soaring in Use(bloomberg.com) |
Apps That Use AI to Undress Women in Photos Soaring in Use(bloomberg.com) |
Preemptively plant evidence to frame anyone you want for any crimes you plan to commit. I hear police departments love cases where they can efficiently dispense looking for alternative suspects. But leave a dozen backup suspect shaggy dog crumb trails just in case. Judicial system take that!
I have no idea where deep fakes are taking us, but if we don't get a cryptographic proof of provenance, location (proof of network latency) and time stamp system working soon for all "evidence", journalistic photos, questionable selfies, nights alone at home nowhere near any crime scene, things are going to get very crazy.
Link?
(a song from a 60s toy ad. the sixth finger had invisible ink, a dart gun, the usual spy stuff)
That said, this defense would not save you for a bunch of reasons.
I see how this can lead to real problematic situations, but it's also so dumb, I don't think there will be any going back. I have no idea how we'll deal with this, I can't imagine we'll just accept that people have bodies and they don't need to be harrassed over it, but there must be a way and we'll find out.
The complexity of the algorithms involved in making images obscures that simple fact and enables a lot of hyperbolic nonsense and dangerous calls for use of force. There's no one being "undressed" here.
edit: you yourself argue for making generation illegal in a different thread up above.
The wars happen when nations disagree about borders. Those borders are represented by maps but luckily nation states don't confuse the two (except for political theater and posturing). The wars happen when the real physical objects go over the real physical borders not when a random person scribbles on a map.
I think my analogy holds up pretty well even with your stretching of the scenario.
For example, there is the sculpture of a nude Brittney Spears giving birth:
http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/contemporary/Con...
(NSFW: There is nudity).
Is there a difference between that and what an AI generates?
You can take a picture of a clothed teenager and it can be perfectly and socially acceptable. Or it can be potentially illegal, based on intent. The same with images taken of nude babies.
Are you creating nude art with the intent of celebrating the human form, or sexual objectification. If it's the latter, do you have consent?
Intent matters, and it will probably be the linchpin for the legality for these discussions.
What laws will be made attempting to stop what likely can't be stopped?
What these software programs do is something else entirely. They refactor the photo into something else which is not the same person in a naked state but an entirely fictional work of "art". It is analogous to posing in front of a painter fully clothed, and the painter applying anatomical knowledge and imagination to add artifacts (or even nudity) that never existed IRL.
You might have some opportunity exploring a defamation action, but still, it's tenuous.
I don't have an answer, but I think we're looking at constitutional battles.
If we really shorten that, it could all fit into an url with a parameter pointing to the original, and nobody's distributing a specific image, they're all privately generated.
Being able to differentiate real and fake isn't the point. An occasional nude is special. An occasional fake nude is special. An infinite number of fakes nudes might just stop having any real power to abuse.
Sexuality is mostly in the mind and a real nude image has a element of fantasy that a fake doesn't have. The fact that it's just a made up bunch of pixels that has no real meaning in real life is a factor that we haven't yet fully experienced.
It's the harassment that's the problem, not the fake nudes.
Or how about have someone else send it to your boss, work contacts, and coworkers? Whether or not it's authentic, that's irrevocably harmed your relationship with them and there is nothing you can do to reverse that.
you must one of the most understanding employers on the planet if this is the case
1. George W. Bush
2. Anna Wintour
3. Donald Trump
4. Rihanna
5. Chris Brown
6. Taylor Swift
7. Kanye West
8. Kim Kardashian
9. Ray J
10. Amber Rose
11. Caitlyn Jenner
12. Bill Cosby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famous_(Kanye_West_song)#Music...
It ended up being received socially negatively, but legally didn't have issues and the video is still up on youtube.
Society has a lot of adapting to do, before they lose their superstitious hang-ups and religious bigotry. It will be a long time, if it ever happens at all.
Even today, women are judged not on the facts of who they are, but by the image men (and women) create around them. They're already bullied and harassed for their virginity (or lack thereof), "body count" (real or perceived), promiscuity, their conformity to society's standards of beauty, and so on.
Nudes, especially those created specifically to objectify or harass, will harm women. It will harm their self image, it will harm their reputations, it will harm their careers (women are already being fired from jobs because of nude pictures of them on various websites).
People are not rational beings. We can know intellectually that a picture is probably a fake, and it won't change how it impacts us. Especially if it plays on our expectations. We tend to go with our first impression, even if it's later proven wrong.
See: "Biden was shown images of babies being beheaded." An image many of us still have in our mind, even though it was explicitly debunked.
There's nothing new here that couldn't be done manually before; all that has changed is the speed at which it can be done.
I do not see any way a law will stop what is essentially math from being performed.
While everyone is worried about job losses and Skynet, these sort of side effects of accessible AI will be what fundamentally shift society.
Simply put, I don't think we'll see anything we haven't seen before, because this isn't a new thing that hasn't been done before- only the means of production (using AI) is new.
For further comparison revenge porn laws also have a similar potential for a first amendment defense but thus far have weathered challenges.
I'm not sure that's true, though. An evil rumour should be assumed to be untrue, yet they're often believed and often cause significant harm.
A generative model is different. You can produce as much content with it as you want, hallucinated out of thin air. The production of said content doesn't have externalities, other than electricity usage, if the content isn't distributed.
This is not true, its the buying of it that drives production. If you make your own meth or pirate CSAM then you would be harming only yourself.
Even today, we believe stories which could easily be faked. We get outraged over stories which have long been proven false. Our belief in stories can even become stronger in the face of such proof.
Unreasonable... humans are entirely unreasonable, and will remain so even in the face of AI.
Do I think that society will transform its views on nude images overnight? No, obviously not. Do I think that every person in society will go with the flow and adopt new assumptions about nude images? Also no. But it seems entirely logical to me to imagine that once the average person notices "hey, I am being inundated with 1000x the number of fake nudes that I used to," they will eventually reach the conclusion that "I should start assuming all nudes are fake by default."
Like I get that it feels cozy to think that it'll just blow over but it ends up being a "thought terminating cliche" that gets repeated ad nauseum in these conversations. I think it's reasonable even if you think the problem will pass to have some idea of what to do if it doesn't. And that's more productive!
I feel like education is probably our best bet for sort-of-kind-of dealing with the repercussions of the problem. Ultimately, attempting to legislatively regulate the production and private distribution of AI nudes just doesn't seem enforceable to me — see: Brandolini's principle. I think our best hope to mitigate the negative impact of this tech is to talk widely about it and actively try to make my "prophecy" come true. Sex ed curriculums should start including warnings about how fake nudes are an epidemic and begin to build the new social norm of not assigning moral judgements based off of them.
I could also see some government-funded PSAs on popular streaming services/TV channels/radio channels being effective. You'd want to try to disproportionately target such messaging to older members of society, since they're less technologically literate on average and therefore more likely to be emotionally traumatized by tech like this.
Now that I'm writing this, I do wonder if there are some regulatory approaches that could help, especially since we have had some success banning CSAM legislatively. The problem with AI nudes, I think, is that they are destined to become indistinguishable from genuine nudes, so a blanket ban is impossible without establishing a panopticon (which is obviously bad). Blanket banning works for CSAM because there is never any case in which a piece of CSAM should ever be knowingly stored or distributed, regardless of its origin. It is always immoral. This complicates things because nude images of adults can be shared consensually by said adults, and banning this practice would be absurd.
I'd be curious to hear your thoughts as well. What sorts of options are there to combat this new AI-generated nude plague if my optimism about the situation turns out to be misplaced?