The creation of sexually explicit deepfake content is likely to become a criminal offense in England and Wales as concern grows over the use of artificial intelligence to exploit and harass women.
If you generate a deepfake it’s based on information garnered from the person’s actual body/face/etc. How is that any different?
Because it isn’t their actual face or body. I’m not sure what’s so complicated about what I’m saying. A photo or video is 100% accurate representation of a person, capturing their actual face/body at a real moment in time. A deepfake or CGI model or painting or charcoal drawing is not a capture of their actual face/body but merely a creative reproduction or interpolation.
This reads to me like…I don’t know, if I right click a photo and choose “duplicate” on my computer then I’ve no longer got the “real” image. Because it’s “new” pixels not comprised of the original. You are trivializing the source of the image, aka a person.
A photo or video is 100% accurate representation of a person
That’s a pretty decisive statement considering it’s been a core debate since the moment the first daguerreotype was captured and no one has conclusively answered it. If I use an 8mm lens is that an accurate representation of you? No, the lens by its very nature is distorting.
I have to use an image of you to generate a deep fake. You are the source. A photo of you, which again is somehow “real” according to you, is the required source to make this work. It is not like using a photo to paint a portrait. The distinction here should be obvious, if for no other reason than the end goal is an image indistinguishable from a “real” photograph or video.
Again you constantly jump between philosophical and measurable definitions. Your argument hinges on some notion of the “truth of the photograph,” which is not a given in the slightest. And at the end of the day, that 14 year old student in Spain was harassed by her classmates in an absolutely vile, fucked up way that is only possible through the use of her “real” image. You need to take a step back and realize what corner you are standing in here. This is not some academic debate, this is real shit with real consequences. Hiding behind some arbitrary line of what constitutes a “real” image does not suddenly make this problem go away. I mean what are you even fighting for here? The right to depict anyone in any way to a mass audience with impunity? As if revenge porn wasn’t a big enough issue already.
If someone takes a ton of photos of you and uses it to make a convincing deepfake of your kid(s) having sex or otherwise nude I have a feeling you’re going to take this matter a lot more seriously. And make no mistake, that shit is already happening. Because kids can be absolutely horrific to each other. I don’t even want to google what adults are doing.
I already addressed how the existing legal framework is able to deal with this. Defamation and blackmail are very well-established legal concepts.
As for the rest, it’s clear to me that this discussion is going nowhere and I have no interest in continuing it. I can’t argue with someone who believes an artwork based off a photo is exactly the same as a photo.
Because it isn’t their actual face or body. I’m not sure what’s so complicated about what I’m saying. A photo or video is 100% accurate representation of a person, capturing their actual face/body at a real moment in time. A deepfake or CGI model or painting or charcoal drawing is not a capture of their actual face/body but merely a creative reproduction or interpolation.
This analogy doesn’t make sense at all.
That’s a pretty decisive statement considering it’s been a core debate since the moment the first daguerreotype was captured and no one has conclusively answered it. If I use an 8mm lens is that an accurate representation of you? No, the lens by its very nature is distorting.
I have to use an image of you to generate a deep fake. You are the source. A photo of you, which again is somehow “real” according to you, is the required source to make this work. It is not like using a photo to paint a portrait. The distinction here should be obvious, if for no other reason than the end goal is an image indistinguishable from a “real” photograph or video.
Again you constantly jump between philosophical and measurable definitions. Your argument hinges on some notion of the “truth of the photograph,” which is not a given in the slightest. And at the end of the day, that 14 year old student in Spain was harassed by her classmates in an absolutely vile, fucked up way that is only possible through the use of her “real” image. You need to take a step back and realize what corner you are standing in here. This is not some academic debate, this is real shit with real consequences. Hiding behind some arbitrary line of what constitutes a “real” image does not suddenly make this problem go away. I mean what are you even fighting for here? The right to depict anyone in any way to a mass audience with impunity? As if revenge porn wasn’t a big enough issue already.
If someone takes a ton of photos of you and uses it to make a convincing deepfake of your kid(s) having sex or otherwise nude I have a feeling you’re going to take this matter a lot more seriously. And make no mistake, that shit is already happening. Because kids can be absolutely horrific to each other. I don’t even want to google what adults are doing.
I already addressed how the existing legal framework is able to deal with this. Defamation and blackmail are very well-established legal concepts.
As for the rest, it’s clear to me that this discussion is going nowhere and I have no interest in continuing it. I can’t argue with someone who believes an artwork based off a photo is exactly the same as a photo.
Deepfakes are largely works of art now? Sadly it does seem this was a waste of time.