• parpol@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    155
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    1 month ago

    His record should be expunged when he turns 18 because it was a crime he committed as a child. I understand their frustrations, but they’re asking to jail a child over some photoshopped images.

    Making a deepfake is definitely not a heavy crime that deserves jailtime or a permanent mark unless he was an adult doing it.

    • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      My personal belief still is that the prohibitive approach is futile and ultimately more harmful than the alternative: embrace the technology, promote it and create deepfakes of everyone.

      Soon the taboo will be gone, the appeal as well, and everyone will have plausible deniability too, because if there are dozens of fake nudes of any given person then who is to say which are real, and why does it even matter at that point?

      This would be a great opportunity to advance our societal values and morals beyond prudish notions, but instead we double down on them.

      E: just to clarify I do not at all want to endorse creating nudity of minors here. Just point out that the girl in the article wouldn’t have to humiliate herself trying to do damage control in the above scenario, because it would be entirely unimportant.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        67
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        While I think removing the stigma associated with having deepfakes made of you is important, I don’t think that desensitization through exposure is the way to go about it. That will cause a lot of damage leading up to the point you’re trying to reach.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          30 days ago

          I don’t seen how else you do it.

          “Removing the stigma” is desensitizing by definition. So you want to desensitize through… what? Education?

          • Chozo@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            30 days ago

            I dunno, but preferably some method which doesn’t involve a bunch of children committing suicide in the meantime.

            • Instigate@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              30 days ago

              As a child protection caseworker, I’m right here with you. The amount of children and young people I’m working with who are self-harming and experiencing suicidal ideation over this stuff is quite prevalent. Sadly, it’s almost all girls who are targeted by this and it’s just another way to push misogyny into the next generation. Desensitisation isn’t the way; it will absolutely cause too much harm before it equalises.

        • Mango@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          29 days ago

          Eve seen a deep fake nude of someone ugly? People make them because they wanna see you naked. Can’t see how that’s an insult.

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        This sounds like a cool idea because it is a novel approach, and it appeals to my general heuristic of the inevitability of technology and freedom. However, I don’t think it’s actually a good idea. People are entitled privacy, on this I hope we agree – and I believe this is because of something more fundamental: people are entitled dignity. If you think we’ll reach a point in this lifetime where it will be too commonplace to be a threat to someone’s dignity, I just don’t agree.

        Not saying the solution is to ban the technology though.

        • fatalError@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          30 days ago

          When you put out photos of yourself on the internet you should expect anyone to find them and do whatever they want to them. If you aren’t expecting that, then you aren’t educated enough on how internet works and that’s what we should be working on. Social media is really bad for privacy and many people are not aware of it.

          Now if someone took a picture of you and then edited it without your consent, that is a different action and it’s a lot more serious offense.

          Either way, deepfakes are just an evolution of something that already existed before and isn’t going away anytime soon.

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            30 days ago

            Yeah I mean it’s just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.

            I agree people need to understand better the privacy risks of social media.

            When you put out photos of yourself on the internet you should expect anyone to find them and do whatever they want to them.

            Expect, yeah I guess. Doesn’t mean we should tolerate it. I expect murder to happen on a daily basis. People editing images of me on their own devices and keeping that to themself, that’s their business. But if they edit photos of me and proliferate, I think it becomes my business. Fortunately, there are no photos of me on the internet.

            Edit: I basically agree with you regarding text content. I’m not sure why I feel different about images of me. Maybe because it’s a fingerprint. I don’t mind so much people editing pictures I post that don’t include my face. Hmm.

            • wewbull@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              30 days ago

              Yeah I mean it’s just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.

              Photoshop has the same technology baked into it now. Sure, it has “safeguards” so it may not generate nudes, but it would have no trouble depicting someone “having dinner with Bill Cosby” or whatever you feel is reputation destroying.

              • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                30 days ago

                Pretty sure they’re talking about generative AI created deepfakes being easier than manually cutting out someone’s face and pasting it on a photo of a naked person, not comparing Adobe’s AI to a different model.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s also worth noting that too many people put out way too much imagery of themselves online. People have got to start expecting that anything you put out in the public domain becomes public domain.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        30 days ago

        I second this motion. People also need to stop posting images of themselves all over the web. Especially their own kids. Parents plastering their kids images all over social media should not be condoned.

        And on a related note we need much better sex-education in this country and a much healthier relationship with nudity.

    • Frokke@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      30 days ago

      You don’t turn 18 and magically discover your actions have consequences.

      “Not a heavy crime”? I’ll introduce you to Sarah, Marie and Olivia. You can tell them it was just a joke. You can tell them the comments they’ve received as a result are just jokes. The catcalling, mentions that their nipples look awesome, that their pussies look nice, etc are just jokes. All 3 of them are changing schools, 2 are failing their years. Because of something someone else did to them. And you claim it’s not that bad? The fuck is wrong with you?

      • parpol@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        30 days ago

        Kids are kids until 18 because people mature at different rates. At 18 it is safe to assume most have matured enough. This kid could be 18 mentally, but he could also be 13 mentally.

        Why are you trying emotional manipulation in order to justify punishing this one kid as if he was an adult?

        Here, let me show you what you just did. Let me introduce you to Steve. His life was ruined because he made a deepfake of a girl he likes and sent it to his friend, but he shouldn’t have trusted that friend, because the deepfake then found itself on every phone in class. Steve got a 3 year sentence, forcing early dropout, and due to his permanent mark, he would forever be grouped with rapists and could never find a job. He killed himself at 21. And you claim it’s not that bad? The fuck is wrong with you?

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          I don’t think maturity is an explicit thing in a binary form, i would be ok with the presumption that the age of 18 provides a general expected range of maturity between individuals, it’s when you start to develop your world view and really pick up on the smaller things in life and how they work together to make a functional system.

          I think the idea of putting a “line” on it, is wrong, i think it’s better to describe it “this is generally what you expect from this subset”

        • Diurnambule@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          30 days ago

          You right his parents have to be punished. They didn’t teach him how to respect other properly.

          • parpol@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            34
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            30 days ago

            Yes, he should face consequences the same way any child should face consequence, by being grounded and shamed, maybe he loses his allowance and gets a suspension.

            You don’t charge kids as adults, period. They’re stupid, they sometimes (often) don’t think of the consequences. They deserve more chances.

      • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        Perhaps at least a small portion of the blame for what these girls are going through should be laid upon the society which obstinately teaches that a woman’s worth as a person is so inextricably tied to her willingness and ability to maintain the privacy of her areolas and vulva that the mere appearance of having failed in the endeavour is treated as a valid reason to disregard her humanity.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            30 days ago

            Ultimately I’m not sure where I fall on this issue, but the fact that you just mindlessly claimed that this person wants to see tits and clits, when they said nothing of the sort, just exposes how fully you realize you can’t defend an actual position.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                29 days ago

                Common or not, they did not make the argument. You presumed a position and then used that made up position to launch an ad hominem.

              • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                29 days ago

                I don’t know how common it is to argue that women and girls should be treated as though they have worth and dignity regardless of their sexual proclivities and discretion, but it should be more common than it seems to be.

                As for your assertion that holding this belief somehow betrays pedophilic sympathies - I have to admit, I don’t follow. Although I will say whether the literacy failure in this argument is mine or yours I am content to leave as an exercise to our readers.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                29 days ago

                People that want everyone to be OK with nudity and in most cases diddling kiddo’s. Same arguments, almost verbatim, have been used in the map-sphere.

                you say this like they’re saying that children have to be naked in order to be outside legally. The point they were making is that the primary reason half of what you said was a significant concern is due explicitly to our current social climate and it’s values. While not fully relevant, they still made a point, and considering how bad your argumentative rhetoric is, i’d say it’s a fair shot at something you said, considering you didn’t have much else to say other than accusing someone of being a pedophile i guess.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            29 days ago

            We have been able to see faces since forever and people are still mocked for having faces that don’t fit the popular norms. Your argument is flawed.

            i have vitiligo on my face, have yet to be mocked for it. People only ask about it respectfully.

            People still have the right to privacy.

            actually, no you don’t. Very few places have legal protections for privacy, both online, and physically, if you go outside in most states in the US you’re being trained on some sort of crime stopping AI dataset somewhere

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        29 days ago

        All 3 of them are changing schools, 2 are failing their years. Because of something someone else did to them. And you claim it’s not that bad? The fuck is wrong with you?

        and by the time they’re 18 and moving on to college, or whatever they’re probably busy not fucking worrying about whatever happened in high school, because at the end of the day you have two options here:

        be a miserable fuck. try to be the least miserable fuck you can, and do something productive.

        Generally people pick the second option.

        And besides, at the end of the day, it’s literally not real, none of this exists. It’s better than having your nudes leaked. Should we execute children who spread nudes of other children now? That’s a far WORSE crime to be committing, because now that shit is just out there, and it’s almost definitely on the internet, AND IT’S REAL.

        Seems to me like you’re unintentionally nullifying the consequences of actual real CSAM material here.

        Is my comment a little silly and excessive? Yes, that was my point. It’s satire.

        • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          29 days ago

          Victims of trauma dont just forget because time passes. They graduate (or dont) and move on in their lives, but the lingering effects of that traumatic experience shape the way the look at the worlds, whether they can trust, body disphoria, whether they can form long-lasting relationships, and other long last trauma responses. Time does not heal the wounds of trauma, they remain as scars that stay vulnerable forever (unless deliberate action is taken by the victim to dismantle the cognitive structure formed by the trauma event).

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            28 days ago

            yeah but we’re also talking about something that quite literally never happened, it was all manufactured, and while i don’t want to downplay the effects of that.

            This is probably the best time ever to start being an e slut because you can just say it was deep faked and people don’t exactly have a reason to disagree with you.

            Also while trauma is permanent, i would also like to remind you that every life experience you have throughout your life is also permanent, it cannot be changed, it cannot be undone, it cannot be revoked. You simply have to live with it. The only thing that changes your experiences and memories around it, is how you handle it internally.

            I would probably be more compassionate with you if we were literally talking about revenge porn, or whatever the correct stipulation would be here, i’m not sure, i don’t exactly fuck people on the regular so i’m not really qualified here lmao.

            But like i said, this is just AI generated. Everyone knows about AI now, how many people do you think are going to hear that and go “yeah that makes sense” probably most of them. Highschoolers might be a bit more unreasonable, but nothing changes the fact that they simply aren’t real. You just have to do your best to dissociate yourself from that alternate reality where they are, because they quite literally, are not.

            some people would consider it to be traumatic, others wouldn’t. I wouldn’t give a shit either way, i might even further the rumors because i think it would be funny. It’s all a matter of perspective.

    • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 month ago

      Using this idea will give minors feel of complete safety when doing crimes. I don’t think you have any sort of morals if you support it but it’s a question for your local law enforcements. The crime in question can seriously damage the mental health of the vuctim and be a reason for severe discrimination. Older minors should be responsible for their actions too.

  • i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    “This kid who is not getting any kind of real consequence other than a little bit of probation, and then when he’s 18, his record will be expunged, and he’ll go on with life, and no one will ever really know what happened,” McAdams told CNN.

    “If [this law] had been in place at that point, those pictures would have been taken down within 48 hours, and he could be looking at three years in jail…so he would get a punishment for what he actually did,” McAdams told CNN.

    There’s a reason kids are tried as kids and their records are expunged when they become adults. Undoing that will just ruin lives without lessening occurrences.

    “It’s still so scary as these images are off Snapchat, but that does not mean that they are not on students’ phones, and every day I’ve had to live with the fear of these photos getting brought up resurfacing,” Berry said. “By this bill getting passed, I will no longer have to live in fear knowing that whoever does bring these images up will be punished.”

    This week, Republican Senator Ted Cruz, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar and several colleagues co-sponsored a bill that would require social media companies to take down deep-fake pornography within two days of getting a report.

    “[The bill] puts a legal obligation on the big tech companies to take it down, to remove the images when the victim or the victim’s family asks for it,” Cruz said. “Elliston’s Mom went to Snapchat over and over and over again, and Snapchat just said, ‘Go jump in a lake.’ They just ignored them for eight months.”

    BS

    It’s been possible for decades for people to share embarrassing pictures of you, real or fake, on the internet. Deep fake technology is only really necessary for video.

    Real or fake pornography including unwilling participants (revenge porn) is already illegal and already taken down, and because the girl is underage it’s extra illegal.

    Besides the legal aspect, the content described in the article, which may be an exaggeration of the actual content, is clearly in violation of Snapchat’s rules and would have been taken down:

    • We prohibit any activity that involves sexual exploitation or abuse of a minor, including sharing child sexual exploitation or abuse imagery, grooming, or sexual extortion (sextortion), or the sexualization of children. We report all identified instances of child sexual exploitation to authorities, including attempts to engage in such conduct. Never post, save, send, forward, distribute, or ask for nude or sexually explicit content involving anyone under the age of 18 (this includes sending or saving such images of yourself).
    • We prohibit promoting, distributing, or sharing pornographic content, as well as commercial activities that relate to pornography or sexual interactions (whether online or offline).
    • We prohibit bullying or harassment of any kind. This extends to all forms of sexual harassment, including sending unwanted sexually explicit, suggestive, or nude images to other users. If someone blocks you, you may not contact them from another Snapchat account.
    • cryptiod137@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Is revenge porn illegal federally? Not that that would really matter, a state could still not have a law and have no way to prosecute it.

      Given there was some state that recently passed a revenge porn law makes it clear your just wrong

      On Snapchats ToS: Lucky never ran into the first point personally but as a teenager I heard about it happening quite a bit.

      The second point is literally not enforced at all, to the point where they recommend some sort of private Snapchats which are literally just porn made by models

      Don’t know how well they enforce the last point

      • i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 month ago

        I looked it up before posting. It’s illegal in 48 states, including California where most of these companies are headquartered, and every state where major cloud data centers are located. This makes it effectively illegal by state laws, which is the worst kind of illegal in the United States when operating a service at a national level because every state will have slightly different laws. No company is going to establish a system that allows users in the two remaining states to exchange revenge porn with each other except maybe a website established solely for that purpose. Certainly Snapchat would not.

        I’ve noticed recently there are many reactionary laws to make illegal specific things that are already illegal or should already be illegal because of a more general law. We’d be much better off with a federal standardization of revenge porn laws than a federal law that specifically outlaws essentially the same thing but only when a specific technology is involved.

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    I apologize for the innappropriate behavior and bans by @[email protected] in this thread, I’ve removed them as a mod here, banned them, and unbanned the ppl who they innappropriately banned.

    Note: if they get unbanned in the near future, its because of our consensus procedure which requires us admins to take a vote.

  • deFrisselle@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    30 days ago

    Odd that there is no mention of the parents contacting the police and working through them to get the images down Technically and legally the photos would be considered child porn Since it’s over the Internet it would bring Federal charges even though there maybe State charges Somethings were handled wrong if all the kid is getting is probation

    • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days ago

      photos

      They aren’t photos. They’re photorealistic drawings done by computer algorithms. This might seem like a tiny quibble to many, but as far as I can tell it is the crux of the entire issue.

      There isn’t any actual private information about the girls being disclosed. The algorithms, for example, do not and could not know about and produce an unseen birthmark, mole, tattoo, piercing, etc. A photograph would have that information. What is being shown is an approxomation of what similar looking girls in the training set look like, with the girls’ faces stiched on top. That is categorically different than something like revenge porn which is purely private information specific to the individual.

      I’m sure it doesn’t feel all that different to the girls in the pics, or to the boys looking at it for that matter. There is some degree of harm here without question. But we must tread lightly because there is real danger in categorizing algorithmic guesswork as reliable which many authoritarian types are desperate to do.

      https://www.wired.com/story/parabon-nanolabs-dna-face-models-police-facial-recognition/

      This is the other side of the same coin. We cannot start treating the output of neural networks as facts. These are error prone black-boxes and that fact must be driven hard into the consciousness of every living person.

      For some, I’m sure purely unrelated reason, I feel like reading Phillip K Dick again…

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        29 days ago

        They aren’t photos. They’re photorealistic drawings done by computer algorithms. This might seem like a tiny quibble to many, but as far as I can tell it is the crux of the entire issue.

        most phone cameras alter the original image with AI shit now, it’s really common, they apply all kinds of weird correction to make it look better. Plus if it’s social media there’s probably a filter somewhere in there. At what point does this become the ship of thesseus?

        my point here, is that if we’re arguing that AI images are semantically, not photos, than most photos on the internet including people would also arguably, not be photos to some degree.

        • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          The difference is that a manipulated photo starts with a photo. It actually contains recorded information about the subject. Deepfakes do not contain any recorded information about the subject unless that subject is also in the training set.

          Yes it is semantics, it’s the reason why we have different words for photography and drawing and they are not interchangeable.

          • Rekorse@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            The deepfakes would contain the prompt image provided by the creator. They did not create a whole new approximation of their face as the entire pool it can pull on for that specific part is a single or group of images provided by the prompter.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            28 days ago

            Deepfakes do not contain any recorded information about the subject unless that subject is also in the training set.

            this is explicitly, untrue, they literally do. You are just factually wrong about this. While it may not be in the training data, how do you think it manages to replace the face of someone in one picture, with the face of someone else in some other video.

            Do you think it just magically guesses? No, it literally uses a real picture of someone. In fact, back in the day with ganimation and early deepfake software, you literally had to train these AIs on pictures of the person you wanted it to do a faceswap on. Remember all those singing deepfakes that were super popular back a couple of years ago? Yep, those literally trained on real pictures.

            Regardless, you are still ignoring my point. My question here was how do we consider AI content to be “not photo” but consider photos manipulated numerous times, through numerous different processes, which are quite literally, not the original photo, and a literal “photo” to rephrase it simpler for you, and other readers. “why is ai generated content not considered to be a photo, when a heavily altered photo of something that vaugely resembles it’s original photo in most aspects, is considered to be a photo”

            You seem to have missed the entire point of my question entirely. And simply said something wrong instead.

            Yes it is semantics

            no, it’s not, this is a ship of thesseus premise here. The semantics results in how we contextualize and conceptualize things into word form. The problem is not semantics (they are just used to convey the problem at hand), the problem is a philosophical conundrum that has existed for thousands of years.

            in fact, if we’re going by semantics here, technically photograph is rather broad as it literally just defines itself as “something in likeness of” though it defines it as taken by method of photography. We could arguably remove that part of it, and simply use it to refer to something that is a likeness of something else. And we see this is contextual usage of words, a “photographic” copy is often used to describe something that is similar enough to something else, that in terms of a photograph, they appear to be the same thing.

            Think about scanning a paper document, that would be a photographic copy of some physical item. While it is literally taken via means of photography. In a contextual and semantic sense, it just refers to the fact that the digital copy is photographically equivalent to the physical copy.

            • suburban_hillbilly@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              28 days ago

              Oh FFS, I clipped the word new. Of course it uses information in the prompt. That’s trivial. No one cares about it returning the information that was given to it in the prompt. Nevertheless, mea culpa. You got me.

              this is a ship of thesseus premise here

              No, it really isn’t.

              The pupose of that paradox is that you unambiguously are recreating/replacing the ship exactly as you already know it is. The reason the ‘ai’ in question here is even being used is that it isn’t doing that. It’s giving you back much more than it was given.

              The comparison would be if Thesues’ ship had been lost and you definitely don’t have the ship anymore, but had managed to recover the sail. If you take the sail to an experienced builder (the ai) who had never seen the ship, then he might be able to build a reasonable approximation based on inferences from the sail and his wealth of knowledge, but nobody is going to be daft enough to assert it is same ship. Does the wheel even have the same number of spokes? Does it have the same number of oars? The same weight of anchor?

              The only way you could even tell if his attempted fascimile was close is if you had already intimate knowledge of the ship from some other source.

              …when a heavily altered photo of something that vaugely resembles it’s original photo in most aspects, is considered to be a photo”

              Disagree.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                27 days ago

                No, it really isn’t.

                i would consider it such, you said as much in your original post that the entire crux of the issue is the semantics between a real photograph, as physically taken by the camera, and what could be considered an image, whatever that constitutes, for purposes of semantical arguments here, let’s say digitally drawn art, clip art, whatever doesn’t matter. It’s objectively not a photo, and that’s what matters here.

                The pupose of that paradox is that you unambiguously are recreating/replacing the ship exactly as you already know it is. The reason the ‘ai’ in question here is even being used is that it isn’t doing that. It’s giving you back much more than it was given.

                Yeah so the reason why the thought experiment does this is because it creates an incredibly sterile environment which allows us to easily study and research the question at hand. In this case it’s to boil it down to something as physically close to “objective relation” and “symbolic relation” I.E. the two extremes of the thought experiment at hand. It’s still not easy to define what the true answer to the question is, and that’s why it’s incredibly sterile.

                The comparison would be if Thesues’ ship had been lost and you definitely don’t have the ship anymore, but had managed to recover the sail. If you take the sail to an experienced builder (the ai) who had never seen the ship, then he might be able to build a reasonable approximation based on inferences from the sail and his wealth of knowledge, but nobody is going to be daft enough to assert it is same ship. Does the wheel even have the same number of spokes? Does it have the same number of oars? The same weight of anchor?

                this is not what i was making my statement about. If you read my original comment you might pickup on this one.

                Disagree.

                yes ok, and this is what my thought experiment comparison was about in this case. The specific thing i was asking you was how we define a photo, and how we define an image, because what would normally be constituted as a photo, could arguably be considered to be an image on account of the various levels of image manipulation taking place.

                While rather nitpicky in essence i suppose, the point i’m making here was that your entire statement might be upended entirely based on the fact that the original photo used, may not even be a photo at all, making the entire distinction entirely redundant to begin with. Since you never defined what counts as a “photo” and what counts as an “image” there is no clear distinction between that, other than the assumed AI image manipulation that you talked about. Which like i said, most phones do.

                In short, i don’t think it’s a very good way of conceptualizing the fundamental problem here because it’s rather loose in it’s requirements. If you wanted to argue that the resulting imagery simply is not akin to actual real imagery (in a literal sense), i see no reason to disagree. However, unfortunately the general populous does not care about the semantic definition of whether or not an image is a photo or not. So as far as most people are concerned, it’s either “deep faked” or “real” There is no alternative.

                Legally, since we’d be talking about revenge porn and CP here, i don’t see a reason to differentiate between the semantics, because as far as the law is concerned, and as far as most of the general public is concerned. Someone deep faking revenge porn is arguably, still just revenge porn. While AI generated CP may not be real CP, marrying a 12 year old is legal in some places, it’d still be fucking weird if you did it. If you are creating AI CP, that’s pretty fucking weird, and there isn’t exactly a good argument for doing that. (ignoring the one obvious counter example)

      • daellat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        I’ve only read do androids dream of electric sheep by him, what other book(s) should I check out by him?

      • Xylogx@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 days ago

        Whether or not you consider them photos, DOJ considers them child porn and you will still go to jail.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      30 days ago

      Technically and legally the photos would be considered child porn

      I don’t think that has been tested in court. It would be a reasonable legal argument to say that the image isn’t a photo of anyone. It doesn’t depict reality, so it can’t depict anyone.

      I think at best you can argue it’s a form of photo manipulation, and the intent is to create a false impression about someone. A form of image based libel, but I don’t think that’s currently a legal concept. It’s also a concept where you would have to protect works of fiction otherwise you’ve just made the visual effects industry illegal if you’re not careful.

      In fact, that raises an interesting simily. We do not allow animals to be abused, but we allow images of animal abuse in films as long as they are faked. We allow images of human physical abuse as long as they are faked. Children are often in horror films, and creating the images we see is very strictly managed so that the child actor is not exposed to anything that could distress them. The resulting “works of art” are not under such limitations as far as I’m aware.

      What’s the line here? Parental consent? I think that could lead to some very concerning outcomes. We all know abusive parents exist.

      I say all of this, not because I want to defend anyone, but because I think we’re about to set some really bad legal precidents if we’re not careful. Ones that will potentially do a lot of harm. Personally, I don’t think the concept of any image, or any other piece of data, being illegal holds water. Police people’s actions, not data.

    • Spedwell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      404media is doing excellent work on tracking the non-consentual porn market and technology. Unfortunately, you don’t really see the larger, more mainstream outlets giving it the same attention beyond its effect on Taylor Swift.

    • Evotech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      30 days ago

      It’s not been reported on much because it doesn’t work that well. It’s not as easy as they want you to believe it is. I’m pretty sure most of the “promotional material” has been photoshopped or cherry picked at best

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        29 days ago

        It’s not as easy as they want you to believe it is. I’m pretty sure most of the “promotional material” has been photoshopped or cherry picked at best

        absolutely, all of the material out there for marketing is digitally manipulated by a human to some degree. And if it isn’t then honestly, i don’t know what you’re using AI image generation for lmao.

  • 31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    Wary of the bill. Seems like every bill involving stuff like this is either designed to erode privacy or for regulatory capture.

    Edit: spelling

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        29 days ago

        and that’s what I loathe about the idiots who are for this stuff. Yes, I want to curb this stuff - but for fuck’s sake there are ways to do it that aren’t “Give big government every scrap of data on you”.

        There are ways to prove I’m over 18 without needing to register my ID with a porn company, or to regulate CSAM while not having to read private messages. Fuck, but we have the combination of circle of a venn diagram of idiot and control freak in congress, and they’ll happily remove all of our rights over some fear of the boogeyman

      • Call Me Mañana@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        I don’t see a problem with that, I think that this information should be public, both prompt and result, because:

        • a. The “AIs” companies already know that, why shouldn’t anyone else?
        • b. They use public information to train their models, thus their results should also be public.
        • c. This would be the ultimate way to know that something was “AI” generated.

        This is a very different subject from giving acess for your DMs. The only ones who benefit from this information not being publicly available are those who use “AI” for malicious purposes, while everyone benefits from privacy of correspondence.

          • Call Me Mañana@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            27 days ago

            No, and that’s why I don’t use Google or anything that isn’t encrypted and sends any data that I consider private to some datacenter. And even when I know the data is encrypted, I am careful, as anyone should be, with data leaving your computer and going to someone else’s.

            “AI” is not the same thing. Why would I want my prompt to be private if I don’t want to use the result in some malicious way, be it generating CSAM or using it to cheat someone to write an article, or to generate a Deep Fake video of someone for an internet scam?

              • Call Me Mañana@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                27 days ago

                I don’t think people’s right to generate whatever image they want to jerk off to is fundamental or more important than avoiding “AI” scams and CSAM generation. There are other ways to jerk off: there’s plenty of real people porn online and also lots, lots, lots of hentai, for literally every taste. “AI” porn only has two particularities that are not satisfied by these two options, one is to generate the scene you want, and for the very remote possibility that what you have imagined has never been produced before, you can pay an artist to To do so, another is Deep Fake porn, which should be a crime, it doesn’t matter if you’re not going to publish the image.

      • winkerjadams@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        29 days ago

        Yes. It’s very tiring having to constantly fight this battle. Unfortunately that’s what they want cause if enough of us are too tired to care then eventually it slips through and we never get back what we lost.

    • Majestic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      It should be considered illegal if it was used to harm/sexually abuse a child which in this case it was.

      Whether it should be classed as CSAM or something separate, I tend to think probably something separate as a revenge porn type law that still allows for distinguishing between this and say a girl whose uncle groomed and sexually abused her while filming it as while this is awful it can (and often does seem) be the product of foolish youth rather than the offender and those involved all being very sick, dangerous, and actually violent offending adult pedophiles victimizing children.

      Consider the following:

      1. Underage girl takes a picture of her own genitals, unfortunately classified as the unhelpful and harmful term “child porn” and she can be charged and registered as a sex offender but it’s not CSAM and -shouldn’t- be considered illegal material or a crime (though it is because the west has a vile fixation on puritanism which hurts survivors of childhood sexual trauma as well as adults).

      2. Underage girl takes a picture of her genitals and sends it to her boyfriend, again /shouldn’t/ be CSAM (unfortunately may be charged similarly), she consented and we can assume there wasn’t any unreasonable level of coercion. What it is unfortunately is bound by certain notions of puritanism that are very American.

      3. From 2, boyfriend shares it with other boys, now it’s potentially CSAM or at the least revenge porn of a child as she didn’t consent and it could be used to harm her but punishment has to be modulated with the fact the offender is likely a child himself and not fully able to comprehend his actions.

      4. Underage boy cuts out photo of underage girl he likes, only her face and head, glues it atop a picture of a naked porn actress, maybe a petite one and uses it for his own purposes in private. Not something I think should be classed as CSAM.

      5. Underage boy uses AI to do the same as above but more believably, again I think it’s kind of creepy but if he keeps it to himself and doesn’t show anyone or spread it around it’s just youthful weirdness though really he probably shouldn’t have easy access to those tools.

      6. Underage boy uses AI to do same as 4-5 but this time he spread it around, defaming the girl, she/her friends find out, people say mean things about her, she has to go to school with a bunch of people who are looking and pleasuring themselves to fake but realistic images of herself against her consent which is violating and makes one feel unsafe. Worse probably being bullied for it, mean things, called the s-word, etc.

      Kids are weird and do dumb things though unfortunately boys especially in our culture have a propensity to do things that hurt girls far more than the inverse to the point it’s not even really worth talking about girls being creepy or sexually abusive towards peer-aged boys in adolescence and young adulthood. To address this though you need to address patriarchy and misogyny on a cultural level, teach boys empathy and respect for girls and women and frankly do away with all this abusive pornography that’s super prevalent and popular which encourages and perpetuates abusive actions and mentalities towards women and girls, this will never happen in the US however because it’s structurally opposed to being able to do such a thing. Also couldn’t hurt to peel back the stigma and shame around sexuality and nudity in the US which stems from its reactionary Christian culture but again I don’t think that will ever happen in the US as it exists, not this century anyways.

      Obviously not getting into adults here as that doesn’t need to be discussed, it’s wrong plain and simple.

      Bottom line I think is companies need to be strongly compelled to quickly remove revenge-porn type stuff (regardless of the age of the victim though children can’t deal with this kind of thing as well as adults so the risk of suicide or other self-harm is much higher so it should be treated as higher priority) which this definitely is. It’s abusive and unacceptable and they should fear the credit card companies coming down on them hard and destroying them if they don’t aggressively remove it and ban it and report those sharing it. It should be driven off the clear-web once reported, there should be an image-hash data-set like that used for CSAM (but separate) for such things and major services should use it to stop the spread.

      • deltapi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        29 days ago

        I think it’s best to not defend kiddie porn, unless you have a republican senator in your pocket.

        • Majestic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          Did you reply to the wrong person or do you just have reading comprehension issues?

    • Nyoka@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      30 days ago

      In this case, yes. Visually indistinguishable from a photo is considered CSAM. We don’t need any new laws about AI to get these assholes. Revenge porn laws and federal CSAM statutes will do.

        • Call Me Mañana@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          27 days ago

          If they can plant AI CSAM in my computer they can also plant “real” CSAM in my computer. Your point doesn’t make any sense.

      • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        30 days ago

        Reporting and getting my comment removed for feeling the hypothetical threat of becoming a CSAM planting victim? Wow, I think I struck the chord with you. It makes sense, people like you never think through things before suggesting them. Such people should never get the tiniest sliver of power.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          30 days ago

          Nothing about your comment addressed why it should be treated differently if it’s ai-generated but visually indistinguishable.

          • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            edit-2
            30 days ago

            There is not yet AI that can do this. Also, is there real world harm happening? This is a problem of defamation and libel, not “CSAM”. Reducing problems to absurdity is lethal to liberty of citizens.

            All those who wanted AI so much, you will have the whole cake now. Fuck AI empowerment. I knew this would happen, but the people glazing AI would not stop. Enjoy this brainrot, and soon a flood of Sora AI generated 720p deep fake porn/gore/murder videos.

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              30 days ago

              Just passing through, no strong opinions on the matter nor is it something I wish to do deep dive research on.

              Just wanted to point out that your original comment was indeed just a threat that did nothing to address OPs argument.

              • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                edit-2
                29 days ago

                It was not a threat, but a hypothetical example to gauge the reaction of that reactionary baiter.

                The problem with claiming AI generated art as CSAM is that there is no possible way to create an objective definition of what “level” of realism is real and what is not. A drawing or imaginary creation is best left not defined as real in any capacity whatsoever. If it is drawn or digitally created, it is not real, period. Those people thinking of good uses of AI were too optimistic and failed to account for the extremely bad use cases that will spiral out of control as far as human society goes.

                Even though China is incredibly advanced and proactive on trying to control this AI deepfake issue, I do not trust any entity in any capacity on such a problem impossible to solve on a country or international scale.

                I just had a dejavu moment typing this comment, and I have no idea why.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      i believe in the US for all intents and purposes, it is, especially if it was sourced from a minor, because you don’t really have an argument against that one.

      • HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        I’m not sure where you’re going with that? I would argue that yes, it is. As it’s sexual material of a child, with that child’s face on it, explicitly made for the purpose of defaming her. So I would say it sexually abused a child.

        But you could also be taking the stance of “AI trains on adult porn, and is mearly recreating child porn. No child was actually harmed during the process.” Which as I’ve said above, I disagree with, especially in this particular circumstance.

        Apologies if it’s just my reading comprehension being shit

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          30 days ago

          It’s actually not clear that viewing material leads that person to causing in person abuse

          Providing non harmful ways to access the content may lead to less abuse as the content they seek no longer comes from abuse, reducing demand for abusive content.

          That being said, this instance isn’t completely fabricated and given its further release is harmful as it it involves a real person and will have emotional impact.

            • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              29 days ago

              There has been yes, but it doesn’t mean it’s the right ruling law. The law varies on that by jurisdiction as well because it is a murky area.

              Edit: in the USA it might not even be illegal unless there was intent to distribute

              By the statute’s own terms, the law does not make all fictional child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. The mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the Internet, transported across state lines, or of an amount that showed intent to distribute.[

              So local AI generating fictional material that is not distributed may be okay federally in the USA.

              • delirious_owl@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                29 days ago

                Serious value? How does one legally argue that their AI-generated child porn stash has “serious value” so they they don’t get incarcerated.

                Laws are weird.

                • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  29 days ago

                  Have the AI try to recreate existing CP already deemed to have serious value and then have all the prompts/variations leading up to the closest match as part of an exhibit.

                  Edit: I should add, don’t try this at home, they’ll still probably say it has no value and throw you in jail.

          • MehBlah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            Any sex act involving a adult and a child/minor is abusive by its very nature.