A mother and her 14-year-old daughter are advocating for better protections for victims after AI-generated nude images of the teen and other female classmates were circulated at a high school in New Jersey.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, officials are investigating an incident involving a teenage boy who allegedly used artificial intelligence to create and distribute similar images of other students – also teen girls - that attend a high school in suburban Seattle, Washington.

The disturbing cases have put a spotlight yet again on explicit AI-generated material that overwhelmingly harms women and children and is booming online at an unprecedented rate. According to an analysis by independent researcher Genevieve Oh that was shared with The Associated Press, more than 143,000 new deepfake videos were posted online this year, which surpasses every other year combined.

114 points

I don’t know what a reasonable"protection" looks like here: the only thing foresee is 14 year old boys getting felonies, but no one being protected.

permalink
report
reply
59 points

Right, there are plenty of reactive measures available but the only proactive measures are either restricting availability of the source photos used or restricting use of the deep fake tools used. Everything beyond that is trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

At some point, communities and social circles need to be able to moderate themselves.

Disseminating nudes of peers should be grounds for ostracizing, but it really depends on the quality of people around you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

That doesn’t work. It’s nothing but an inconvenience to not talk to your neighbors or those around you. They’d just get even worse and make even worse friends online.

Ostracization doesn’t work. Ever. Period. If they’re bad enough, banishment works. Ostracization is just literally ignoring the problem.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

It’s not possible to restrict deep fake technology at this point. It’s out there. Accessible to everyone who wants it and has a computer at home.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Both of those options seem impossible in practice.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

And that’s the point I was making, nobody can be “protected” from widely available photos being used on widely available programs. Best we can do is deter but that isn’t a guarantee.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

Are we seriously going to try and use someone’s photos for dumb shit like this? Cone on, people just want something to wank to or someone to call over to have sex with, who the hell would actually do this?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Well evidently the answer to your last question is " some people". Your point would only make sense if all this was hypothetical

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Even if you don’t want to consider it CSAM, it is, at the very least, sexual harassment. The kids making and circulating these pictures and videos should be facing consequences. And the fear of consequences does offer some degree of protection at least.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It looks like pretty severe sexual harassment at best. Unfortunately the people I think are most likely to do it are teenagers with poor self control who don’t realize the severity.

I think if schools can implement appropriate restorative responses and education on the harm done that could be much more effective than decaigan punishments after the fact.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Should a teenager face consequences for drawing a picture of their classmate naked? What if they do it well? How is this at all different?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

If they distribute the drawing, yes. And the difference is that a drawing is immediately recognisable as a drawing, but an AI generated image or video isn’t necessarily easily recognisable as not being real, so the social consequences for the person depicted can be much worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

no. the article mentions"protecting" people several times. I don’t see how anyone is protected by the proposed laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
93 points

Methinks this problem is gonna get out of fucking hand. Welcome to the future, it sucks.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Meagrees :/

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

AI is out of the bag for all the good and bad it will do. Nothing will be safe on the internet, and hasn’t been for a long time now. Either we will get government monitored AI results or use AI to combat misuse of AI. Either way isn’t preventative. The next wild west frontier is upon us, and it’s full of bandits in hiding.

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points
*

Maybe it is just me, but its why I think this is a bigger issue than just Hollywood.

The rights to famous people’s “images” are bought and sold all the time.

I would argue that the entire concept should be made illegal. Others can only use your image with your explicit permission and your image cannot be “owned” by anyone but yourself.

The fact that making a law like this isn’t a priority means this will get worse because we already have a society and laws that don’t respect our rights to control of our own image.

A law like this would also remove all the questions about youth and sex and instead make it a case of misuse of someone else’s image. In this case it could even be considered defamation for altering the image to make it seem like it was real. They defamed her by making it seem like she took nude photos of herself to spread around.

permalink
report
reply
54 points
*

There are genuine reasons not to give people sole authority over their image though. “Oh that’s a picture of me genuinely doing something bad, you can’t publish that!”

Like, we still need to be able to have a public conversation about (especially political) public figures and their actions as photographed

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Seems like a typical copyright issue. The copyright owner has a monopoly on the intellectual property, but there are (genuine reasons) fair use exceptions (for journalism, satire, academic, backup, etc.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Reminder that the stated reason for copyrights to exist say all, per the US Constitution, is “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

Anything that occurs naturally falls outside the original rationale. We’ve experienced a huge expansion of the concept of intellectual property since then, but as far as I can tell there has never been a consensus on what purpose intellectual property rights are supposed to serve beyond the original conception.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Yeah I’m not stipulating a law where you can’t be held accountable for actions. Any actions you take as an individual are things you do that impact your image, of which you are in control. People using photographic evidence to prove you have done them is not a misuse of your image.

Making fake images whole cloth is.

The question of whether this technology will make such evidence untrustworthy is another conversation that sadly I don’t have enough time for right this moment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

If you have a picture of someone doing something bad you really should be talking to law enforcement not Faceboot. If it isnt so bad that it is criminal I wonder why it is your concern?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It’s not just “taking it to law enforcement”, it’s a freedom of the press issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

That sounds pretty dystopian to me. Wouldn’t that make filming in public basically illegal?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

In Germany it is illegal to make photos or videos of people who are identifieable (faces are seen or closeups) without asking for permission first. With exception of public events, as long as you do not focus on individuals. It doesn’t feel dystopian at all, to be honest. I’d rather have it that way than ending up on someone’s stupid vlog or whatever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Wait you thought this was a problem for Hollywood?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It is for actors, since you would be handing over the right to your likeness to studios for AI to reproduce for eternity.

It was one of the main issues for the SAG-AFTRA strike.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Well at least they’re getting paid for it. But someone could copy your likeness for free

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Or their identity?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The tools used to make these images can largely be ignored, as can the vast majority of what AI creates of people. Fake nudes and photos have been possible for a long time now. The biggest way we deal with them is to go after large distributors of that content.

When it comes to younger people, the penalty should be pretty heavy for doing this. But it’s the same as distributing real images of people. Photos that you don’t own. I don’t see how this is any different or how we treat it any differently than that.

I agree with your defamation point. People in general and even young people should be able to go after bullies or these image distributors for damages.

I think this is a giant mess that is going to upturn a lot of what we think about society but the answer isn’t to ban the tools or to make it illegal to use the tools however you want. The solution is the same as the ones we’ve created, just with more sensitivity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Many years ago I mentioned this on reddit. Complaining how photographers can just take pictures of you or your property and do what they want with it. Of course the group mind attacked me.

Problem just seems to get worse by the year.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

That’s because your proposal would make photography de facto illegal, because getting the rights to everyone and everything that appears in a photograph would be virtually impossible. Hell, most other kinds of visual art would be essentially illegal as well. There would be hardly anything but abstract art.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Bullshit.

Taking a photo of yourself or your family at a public landmark? Legal.

Taking a photo of yourself or your family at a celebration? Legal.

Zooming in on the local Catholic school to get a shot of some 12 year olds and putting it on the internet? Illegal.

We need to stop pretending that photography isn’t a thing and that there is zero expectation of privacy if someone can violate it. This is crap we see with police using infrared cameras to get around the need for warrants and the crap we see of people using drones to stalk. You have the right to be left the fuck alone and if someone wants to creep on teens well sorry you are out of luck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points
*

Maybe I’m just naive of how many protections we’re actually granted but shouldn’t this already fall under CP/CSAM legislation in nearly every country?

permalink
report
reply
14 points

Would it? How do they prove the age of an AI generated image?

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

By… checking the age of the person depicted in the image?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

…who by definition is AI generated and does not, in fact, exist?

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Just ask ChatGPT to cut them in half and count the rings.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

You mean the real person being depicted? So this wouldn’t apply to fake people?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it’s depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it’s depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Ship of Thesseus

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Won’t somebody think of the make believe computer generated cartoon children?!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Someone has to pay… this image is only 2 hours old…TWO HOURS OLD, YOU ANIMALS

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

In Germany, it would.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Not a lawyer, but 99% sure it’s the same here in Canada as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Australia too. Hentai showing underage people is illegal here. From my understanding it’s all a little grey depending on the state and whether the laws are enforced, but if it’s about victimisation the law will be pretty clear.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It was done by another underage boy, how would the law act in this case?

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points
*

Yes, underage people can be charged.

https://www.tribtoday.com/news/local-news/2019/01/teen-sexting-is-child-porn/

Edit: Of course this is actual pictures, not generated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

So basically the link you posted has nothing to do with OP LOL

permalink
report
parent
reply
41 points

Honest opinion:

We should normalize nudity.

That’s the only healthy relationship that we can have with our bodies in the long term.

permalink
report
reply
68 points

There’s a pretty big fucking difference between normalizing nudity and people putting the faces of 14 year olds in porn video through deepfakes.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Good luck both policing it and having a society with a healthy relationship with our biology and Ai technology without some sort of societal perspective change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Healthy is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the context of PDFs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points

This isn’t even the problem going on, though? Sure, normalize nudity, whatever, that doesn’t fix deep faked porn of literal children.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

outlaw children

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Fucking finally

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Hey, that’s the name of outlaw star x wolf children cross over fan fic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Here here!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

thank you biden

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

It’s the idea that people may be less sexually depraved if we normalize people being naked. Duh. In my opinion the whole world just needs to normalize sexuality across the board. I think it would solve many of society’s problems, frankly

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Why is that a problem though? Youre allowed to draw a picture of a specific child naked, why is it suddenly a crime if you use a computer to do it really well?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I shouldn’t have to answer this

permalink
report
parent
reply
45 points
*

Having spent many years in both the US and multiple European countries, I can confidently say that the US has the weirdest, most unnatural, and most unhealthy relationship with nudity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

For this to happen people would probably need to stop judging people on their bodies. I am pretty sure there is a connection there. With how extremely superficial media and many relationships are, and with how we value women in particular, this needs a lot of change in people and society.

I also think it would be a good thing, but we still have to do something about it until we reach that point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 522K

    Comments