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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ostracization doesn’t work. Ever. Period. If they’re bad enough, banishment works. Ostracization is just literally ignoring the problem.
That’s just wrong. Unless you’re hanging around shitty people, ignoring the bad ones by definition works.
A lot of social circles are dominated by either shitty people or by people too insecure to take a confronting attitude towards those shitty people.
It works for you. It doesn’t work on a societal level.
Yeah, it does. It’s literally how most friend groups keep undesirables from hanging out with them.
Your friend group is not a sufficient model for all friend groups. They’re a fundamentally different set. All sets are not the same as the other, and taken as a whole it is fundamentally different than any individual group. I’m talking about all groups. Not your group.
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.
Both of those options seem impossible in practice.
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.
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?
Well evidently the answer to your last question is " some people". Your point would only make sense if all this was hypothetical
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.
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.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
no. the article mentions"protecting" people several times. I don’t see how anyone is protected by the proposed laws.
Methinks this problem is gonna get out of fucking hand. Welcome to the future, it sucks.
Meagrees :/
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.
Makes sense. If I do something worth taking a picture of that means I have zero rights to it since that is “natural”, but the person who took the photo has all the rights to it.
Tell me this crap wasn’t written for and by the worst garbage publishers out there.
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.
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?
It’s not just “taking it to law enforcement”, it’s a freedom of the press issue.
Can you address what I brought up?
Public outrage more often drives justice for public figures than what law enforcement does on its own. The level of control you’re asking for would simply nuke the press.
No. Public figures are not private figures.
My experience with the police is that most of them will systematically ignore denounces up until the issue has already grown out of control. Outside of that, there are things that are unethical but not illegal, but you might want to denounce publicly anyway.
Ok so your plan is if you see someone do something illegal is to depend on faceboot
If you complain that people don’t address your point, and then someone addresses it in good faith, strawmanning them afterwards only makes you look like an asshole and encourages everyone else to not address you at all.
I don’t have time for this…
That sounds pretty dystopian to me. Wouldn’t that make filming in public basically illegal?
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.
Wait you thought this was a problem for Hollywood?
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.
Well at least they’re getting paid for it. But someone could copy your likeness for free
They could be impersonating me as we speak!
Or their identity?
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are literally already cases where taking a photo of yourself in front of a public landmark is illegal because of copyright issues.
And?
Honest opinion:
We should normalize nudity.
That’s the only healthy relationship that we can have with our bodies in the long term.
There’s a pretty big fucking difference between normalizing nudity and people putting the faces of 14 year olds in porn video through deepfakes.
This isn’t even the problem going on, though? Sure, normalize nudity, whatever, that doesn’t fix deep faked porn of literal children.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
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?
Would it? How do they prove the age of an AI generated image?
By… checking the age of the person depicted in the image?
Just ask ChatGPT to cut them in half and count the rings.
…who by definition is AI generated and does not, in fact, exist?
What? But they literally do exist, and they’re hurting from it. Did you even read the post?
While you’re correct, many of these generators are retaining the source image and only generating masked sections, so the person in the image is still themselves with effectively photoshopped nudity, which would still qualify as child pornography. That is an interesting point that you make though
The article is about real children being used as the basis for AI-generated porn. This isn’t about entirely fabricated images.
Of course they exist. If the AI generated image “depicts” a person, a victim in this case, that person “by definition” exists.
Your argument evaporates when you consider that all digital images are interpreted and encoded by complex mathematical algorithms. All digital images are “fake” by that definition and therefore the people depicted do not exist. Try explaining that to your 9 year old daughter.
Go to this website and tell me who is depicted in the photo, please?
Are you daft? I assume that the person depicted in the photo at thispersondoesnotexist.com does not exist.
That image was generated by AI.
So do people in images that are purely AI generated exist, or not?
You fucking dunce. You did not read the article. People have been taking real pictures of real children, and using AI to remove their clothes. The real person is still in the image
You mean the real person being depicted? So this wouldn’t apply to fake people?
Which fake people?
If the porn were of non-real people.
You can’t ask questions on lemmy - people assume you have lots of subtext that isn’t there.
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?
I’m unsure of the point you’re trying to make?
It’s relevant in this case because the age they are today is underage. A picture of them 10 years ago is underage. And a picture of anyone made by AI to deep fake them nude is unethical irregardless of age. But it’s especially concerning when the goal is to depict underage girls as nude. The age thing specifically could get a little complicated in certain situations ig, but the intent is obvious most of the time.
I’m obviously not advocating or defending any particular behavior.
Legally speaking, why is what age they are today relevant rather than the age they are depicted as in the picture? Like, imagine we have a picture 20 years from now of someone at age 37. It’s legally fine until it’s revealed it was generated in 2023 when the person in question was 17? If the exact same picture was generated a year later it’s fine again?
Basically, yes.
Is the person under-age at the time the image was generated? and … Is the image sexual in nature?
If yes, then generating or possessing such an image ought to be a crime.
Ship of Thesseus
IDK why this dumb thought experiment makes me so grumpy everyone someone invokes it, but you’re going to have to explain how it’s relevant here.
How many pieces do you have to change before it’s not closely enough related? If every piece is modified, is it the same base image? If it’s not the same image, when does it cease to represent the original and must be reassessed? If it’s no longer the image of a real person, given the extreme variety in both real and imagined people, how can an AI image ever be illegal? If you morph between an image of a horse and an illegal image, at what exact point does it become illegal? What about a person and an illegal image? What about an ai generated borderline image and an illegal image? At some point, a legal image changes into an illegal image, and that point is nearly impossible to define. Likewise, the transition between a real and imagined person is the same, or the likeness between two similar looking real, but different, or imagined people.
that point is nearly impossible to define
As with any law, there will undoubtedly be cases in which it is difficult to discern whether or not a law has been broken, but courts decide on innocence or guilt in such cases every day. A jury would be asked to decide whether a a reasonable third party is likely to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the image depicts a person who is under 18.
Whether or not the depicted person is real or imagined is not relevant in many / most jurisdictions.
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?
Won’t somebody think of the make believe computer generated cartoon children?!
Someone has to pay… this image is only 2 hours old…TWO HOURS OLD, YOU ANIMALS
In Germany, it would.
Not a lawyer, but 99% sure it’s the same here in Canada as well.
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.
Absolutely absurd. Criminalizing drawings is the stupidest thing in the world.
This case should already be illegal under harassment or similar laws. There’s no reason to make drawings illegal
In germany even a written story about it is illegal. it is considered “textual CSAM” then.
Nah dude, I am perfectly cool with animated depictions of child sexual exploitation being in the same category as regualr child exploitation regardless of the fact that she’s actually a 10,000 old midget elf or whatever paper thin explanation they provide not to be considered paedos.
Well that’s just absurd and you should rethink your position using logic rather than emotion.
“that’s just absurd”
Well that’s an emotional response that includes no specifics or appeals to logic.
“rethink your position using logic rather than emotion”
Lol.
It was done by another underage boy, how would the law act in this case?
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.
So basically the link you posted has nothing to do with OP LOL
There might be an upside to all this, though maybe not for these girls: with enough of this people will eventually just stop believing any nude pictures “leaked” are real, which will be a great thing for people who had real nude pictures leaked - which, once on the Internet, are pretty hard to stop spreading - because other people will just presume they’re deepfakes.
Mind you, it would be a lot better if people in general culturally evolved beyond being preachy monkeys who pass judgment on others because they’ve been photographed in their birthday-suit, but that’s clearly asking too much so I guess simply people assuming all such things are deepfakes until proven otherwise is at least better than the status quo.
Photoshop is a 40yo tool and people still believe almost every picture.
Fair point.
Yes, but good Photoshop has a high skill ceiling. Generative AI does not.
In previous generations the kid making fake porn of their classmates was not a well liked kid. Is that reversed now? On the basis of quality of tech?
That kid that doodles is creepy. But deep fakes probably feel a lot closer to actual nudes.
Oooh that’s bad. Yeah I would never do that but I did hear about the idea floating around back in the day, though I don’t think the tech is there yet. It’s just generally not cool
The tech is there. That’s the point of this article
Yeah it sucks bro, but honestly I feel like it just means more people can just chat about porno and have a laugh, and honestly be coy, rather than play
So as a grown woman, I’m not getting why teenage girls should give any of this oxygen. Some idiot takes my head and pastes it on porn. So what? That’s more embarrassing for HIM than for me. How pathetic that these incels are so unable to have a relationship with an actual girl. Whatever, dudes. Any boy who does this should be laughed off campus. Girls need to take their power and use it collectively to shame and humiliate these guys.
I do think anyone who spreads these images should be prosecuted as a child pornographer and listed as a sex offender. Make an example out of a few and the rest won’t dare to share it outside their sick incels club.
That’s fine and well. Except they are videos, and it is very difficult to prove they aren’t you. And the internet is forever.
This isn’t like high school when you went to high school.
Agreed on your last paragraph.
Then nude leak scandals will quickly become a thing of the past, because now every nude video/picture can be assumed to be AI generated and are always fake until proven otherwise.
That’s the silver lining of this entire ordeal.
Again, this is a content distribution problem more than an AI problem, the liability should be on those who willingly host these deepfake content than on AI image generators.
That would be great in a perfect world, but unfortunately public perception is significantly more important than facts when it comes to stuff like this. People accused of heinous crimes can and do lose friends, their jobs, and have their life ruined even if they prove that they are completely innocent
Plus, something I’ve already seen happen is someone says a nude is fake and are then told they have to prove that it’s fake to get people to believe them… which is very hard without sharing an actual nude that has something unique about their body
The rest of the human body has more unique traits than the nude parts. Freckles, birthmarks, scars, tattoos. Those are traits that are not possible to replicate unless the person specifically knows.
Now that I think about it, we all proobably need a tattoo. That should clear anyone instantly.
You can ask an AI to draw a blurred version of the tattoo. Or to mask the tattooed area with, I don’t know, piece of clothes or something.
Yes I’m sure a hiring manager is going to involve themselves that deeply in the pornographic video your face pops up in.
HR probably wouldn’t even allow a conversation about it. That person just never gets called back.
And then the worse part is the jobs that DO hire you. Now you have to question why they are hiring you. Did they not see the fake porn video? Or did they see it.
The entire thing is damaging and ugly.
If you are already an employee, then they, will want to keep you and look into the matter.
If you are not an employee yet - is HR really looking up porn of everyone?
Yes, HR Googles your name. 🙄
Seems we’re partially applying market dynamics of supply and demand. Simply assuming the “surplus” supply of deep fakes will decrease their value ignores the fact that the demand is still there. Instead what we get is new value opportunities in the arms race of validating and distributing deep fakes.
Why should they have to expend any energy proving it’s not them?
I mean they obviously shouldn’t have to, but if nude photos of you got leaked in your community, people would start judging you negatively, especially if you’re a young woman. Also in these cases where they aren’t adults it would be considered cp.
So they do it and share it around to slut shame you
You try to find a job and they find porn of you
It’s a lot worse than you’re making it out to be when it’s not you that gets to make that decision
IMO the days of searching for porn of prospective employees are over. With the advent of AI generated porn, what would be the point of that?
People are quicker to judge than they are to reason
There are so many recent articles linked on Lemmy about people losing their job over making porn. The days of losing jobs over porn is now more than ever.
Seriously? Maybe we don’t read the same stuff but that’s not something I’ve noticed.
I just can’t imagine how that’s possible. I wish someone would fire me over porn so I could sue them for unfair dismissal as well as defamation and or libel.
I don’t think the problem is that the girls and ashamed of the fake porn. The problem is not even that other kids will believe it. The problem is that kids will use it to mock, bully and ostracise them. It’s not being shared as ‘OMG, you’re so hot I made fake sex tape with you, marry me". It’s being shared as "you’re a slut that does porn, everyone thinks you’re a bitch, go kill yourself’.
I see your point. In that way it’s just like any other bullying, though more personal. Unfortunately, society hasn’t done a good job of coming up with workable solutions for bullying. In this case, dragging the culprit behind the bleachers and letting the girls take turns kicking him in the nuts would be my go-to, but you can’t do that sort of thing anymore.
You response highlights how the victims needs the power of community to respond appropriately, and how society excuses some forms of violence (involuntary porn) and not others (women getting retribution).
You may not be representative of teenage girls.
So as a grown woman
Right? Literally not what’s being discussed. Obviously they’ll be more mature and reasonable about it. Teenagers won’t be
I wasn’t very representative even when I WAS a teenager. I was bullied quite a bit, though.
And can you imagine those bullies creating realistic porn of you and sharing it with everyone at school? You may have been strong enough to endure that - but it’s pretty unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to do so. And it’s not a moral failing if somebody is unable to. This is the sort of thing that leads to suicides.
What if the deep fake was so real it was hard to tell? Now if the deep fake was highly invasive and humiliating? Can you see the problem?
I think that the point this comment is trying to make is that because it has become so easy to make these images, their existence is not very meaningful. All deep fakes are very realistic. You can’t tell fakes from originals.
Like as an adult, if I saw an “offensive” image of a co-worker, my first assumption would be that it’s probably AI generated, my first thought would be “which asshole made this image” rather than “I can’t believe my co-worker did [whatever thing]”.
Not really. The more extreme it is, the more easily people will believe you when you say it’s a deep fake. Everyone who matters (friends and family) will know it’s not you. The more this sort of thing becomes commonplace, the more people will simply shake their heads and move on.
People kill themselves over much more mundane things than this. I think you overestimate teenagers unfortunately, not everyone can handle it as lightly as you would. Telling people to just “shake it off” will simply not work most of the time.
Sadly, you have a point. Somebody with good support at home and a circle of friends can weather this sort of thing, but others may feel helpless or hopeless. There needs to be an effective place to turn to for kids who are being bullied. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to exist.
That depends on a how a specific person is seen and treated by their surroundings.
A teenage girl who is already a victim of harassment or bullying for example will be treated very differently when humiliating images of her surface in her peer group, compared between someone who is well liked in school.
People who do this have to be judged much more harshly. This can’t become the next item on a list of common sexual harassment experiences every girl and women “has to” experience.
I wonder what the prevalence of this kind of behavior is like in countries that aren’t so weird about sex.
This has nothing to do with “being weird about sex” and everything to do with men treating women poorly.
You can expect this to be worse in nations where women don’t have as many rights and/or where misogyny is accepted as part of life.
Sounds plausible, we just abolished Roe, so…. It’s not looking great for the future of this issue in the US.
Yeah shit sucks
Kids don’t know or understand the damage this can cause someone.
They see it as a joke most of the time.
It needs to be made illegal and the kids properly educated about why.
It’s easy as an adult to condemn these children but we have a lot more life experience.
So, you’re saying both:
- It’s childish behavior
- It should be made illegal
So… you think the solution to childish behavior is putting kids in jail?
*deep breath* lemme try to see a more logical interpretation….
Wait, you did mention education, ok I musta missed that on my first read.
So educate the kids, and if they don’t learn… jail
Jail is not the only possible punishment for anything illegal.
Regardless, you want to punish children for childish behaviour.
That is correct. You punish and educate children who do things wrong. Timeout’s a new concept to you?
You may be from the US, where this isn’t really a concept, but there is significant evidence that you actually can teach better with proper rewards for good behaviour than you can with punishment for bad behaviour.
I’m actually not sure what the science says about doing both together (maybe I’d read on it more if I actually had kids), but personal experience and discussions at least indicate that parents who punish consistently, rarely couple it with equivalent rewards/praise.
But maybe you and/or your parents are different.
Personally, I just got punished a lot for having ADHD. Not that they knew it at the time, but it turns out that’s effectively what was happening. And for people with ADHD, small immediate rewards are WAY more effective than potential, delayed punishment, even if severe.
Positive reinforcement is a known concept in the US. Who ever told you other wise misled you.
Science says we teach alternative behaviors and provide positive reinforcement for socially appropriate behaviors. Punishment (which isn’t just jail, it can be stuff like detention if we’re not losing our heads here) if it’s not paired with a replacement behavior is the least effective. Usually you reserve punishment for “danger to self or others” behaviors…
Now, as to where this behavior falls. Having AI generated porn of yourself all over the internet as a young girl in some of the puritan towns in the US? That could be an absolute nightmare for the victim this of course something has to occur. Perhaps punishment would be best direct towards those who should know better (parents). Here, the harm being to others…how can we replace this particular behavior? Yes, education, but there also needs to be something better for these kiddos to be doing with their time.
Further reading can be found in punishment, reinforcement, functional replacement behavior.
There is “childish behavior” that results in someone getting traumatised in virtually all schools.
Dropping heavy rocks off a highway overpass is childish behavior.
Didn’t say jail, you did. I in fact didn’t talk about punishment at all.
But there has to be consequences.
If kids steal we don’t just throw them straight in jail. But it is a possible consequence.
We’re also talking about 14 year olds not literal children.
Illegal necessarily implies punishment, as far as I understand.
Also, 14 year olds are children. But the trajectory of this conversation is clear, and it’s not going anywhere.
Well that’s the result when you put words in peoples’ mouths, instead of trying to have a discussion.
If I don’t make any logical steps given the limited words provided in a conversation, then communication becomes impossibly slow. Therefore i feel that I have to make such logical steps. Because text based communication, in the current times, is a bandwidth constraint on the passage of concepts between two human minds. In this case, because of said bandwidth constraint existing between your brain and mine, I made the step and assumed that when you mention making something illegal, that you meant that governments should prohibit the act and do as they (in my understanding) typically do and enforce said prohibition with threat of incarceration. That may have been an oversimplified view of the judicial system, there are other means of enforcement, but I’m only really familiar with the idea of children either being incarcerated or maybe given community service, but I usually (I’m not sure why) given to believe that community service isn’t usually a statutory punishment, but rather a discretionary adjustment that a judge can afford someone. It’s also worth noting that I have concerns about the way in which minorities are disproportionately sentenced, procecuted, and ultimately harmed by the judicial system. Concerns which bias my thoughts when the subject is raised. But I’d like to make clear that I’m using the term bias a bit more strictly, as in every human has a bias against/for basically everything.
So, if I may take another leap, it seems you’re implying that you are specifically talking about me, and not using “you” in the general sense. And I’ll assume you’re actually referring to this current conversation, and claiming that I caused this outcome because I put words in your mouth. Oh, and by that you’re saying (again, these are my assumptions) that I’m claiming that you said something which you never actually said.
So maybe, if you take some logical leaps for the sake of me being able to type this in my life time, you can see that I was not necessarily trying to maliciously misconstrue what it is that you were saying.
And in case it’s not clear, the above is conveyed with mild contempt for you.
It’s actually called a straw man logical fallacy.
You exaggerated what I said and then attacked your exaggeration.
What sort of “consequences” are you talking about that aren’t punishment?
the kids properly educated about why.
- DARE is celebrating its 40th anniversary.
- It has officer-led classroom lessons that reach 2,500,000 K-12 students per year.
- “Enriching students across the US and 29+ countries around the world”
If your argument is “The educators just need to make sure the kids learn that this is not a joke”, DARE has been educating students about the dangers of illegal drugs for 40 years.
Overdoses claimed more than 112,000 American lives from May 2022 to May 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a 37 percent increase compared with the 12-month period ending in May 2020.
You might persuade some, but the problem will not go away.
DARE is known as a bad program, because it goes for fear mongering rather actual education. Everyone knows someone who uses marijuana, and they’re teeth haven’t all fallen out and they’re haven’t turned into a psychotic murderer. [VOX - Why anti-drug campaigns like DARE fail
](https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/5998571/why-anti-drug-campaigns-like-dare-fail)
There are good and bad ways to go about education. Like comprehensive sex education vs abstinence only, even though they’re covering the same topic, actual education is much more effective than just say no. [NLM Abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education study
That was my point. DARE didn’t stop drug use. Any education will persuade some. However, unless the students and their families buy in at 100%, this problem isn’t going away.
About 130 million adults in the U.S. have low literacy skills according to a Gallup analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Education. This means more than half of Americans between the ages of 16 and 74 (54%) read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
https://www.apmresearchlab.org/10x-adult-literacy
The starkest differences were seen by education group. Returning to the first question given above, in many countries adults with a “low” level of education (the equivalent of completing secondary school) had less than a 50% chance of getting the question correct. In places like Canada and United States, this fell to as low as 25%.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-high-adults-unable-basic-mathematical.html
Education alone is not going to make this go away.
I 100% agree that education alone will not resolve the issue, but I believe education can help the efficacy of other approaches.
I did a report on the dangers of LSD when I was young.
I learned it’s impossible to overdose on and nobody has died directly as a result of it.
I had never been so interested in trying something out. “Okay so the world becomes crazy for 4-8 hours and you see crazy stuff and everything is hilarious and you can’t die at all and all you gotta do it be in a comfy set and setting”
God damn, Imma clean out a vial and watch Enter the Void
Quick edit: staring at my MacBook Pro turned into fractals and it’s just fucking anodized aliminium wtf that’s cool
DARE is not a good example to hold up because the program doesn’t work.
Edit: to clarify, DARE has always been flawed and ineffective. There was a study in 1994 that showed this yet it didn’t stop or change the program.
You’re using DARE as a positive example‽ the DARE program is widely considered to be an enormous failure. Here’s a decent rundown:
(But if you just search it up you’ll find hundreds of similar articles)
I was in school when the DARE program was quite strongly promoted and I specifically remember being fed endless misinformation about drugs. It was never about educating children it was about trying to scare them with bullshit.
“If they were wrong about marijuana being addicting they’re probably wrong about everything else…”
…aaaaand that’s how young people ended up trying all sorts of new things they shouldn’t have.
Other people seem to think you’re holding up Dare as a positive example. I can tell you’re not, but I don’t think it’s a great negative example either. So much of the content is fear mongering bullshit that anyone who actually encounters drugs in real life will see through it.
Education works a lot better when you teach kids things that aren’t directly contradicted by their experiences or their peers’.
Education will persuade some.
Education alone will not make the problem go away.
I think at some point kids need to learn that there won’t be someone stopping them from doing bad things.
They need to suffer the consequences of their actions through social rejection. If the microcosm is so shitty that it doesn’t ostracize people who disseminate nudes, then the people in it deserve to suffer until they improve.
This should be one of the easiest ways to identify shitbags, but I understand a lot of social hierarchies put shitbags at or near the top.
What does this have to do with the other? Where I live nudity isn’t all that uncommon (when compared to the US, for example). But sexually harassing someone with fake porn is whole different issue.
I see a lot of problems with people having trouble understanding consent and struggling to respect other people. Those boys are weird about sex. That’s the weirdness we should address.
My bad, I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. I meant, I wonder if boys would be so weird as to want to make such fake porn in places that are less weird about sex.
Did you think I was advocating for the fake images?
No I thought you meant that being hurt by fake porn about yourself is “being weird about sex”.
I imagine, in a society where the appeal of such images is low, the sanctity of the image of the body probably isn’t a big deal and people wouldn’t be so hurt by them either.
It’s still a questionable way to approach it. Why should the consequence be that people are simply “too weird about sex” and that should change? Instead of that the boys are weird and should change? It’s typical victim blaming.
This perspective (the victim should change) is very prevalent when the crime is sexual harassment of girls and women.
Did I imply that the victim should change?
Naked pictures are all over the internet and they still wanted to make porn of their classmates. It’s not about wanting the porn, it’s about wanting to burt the girls.
I first thought it was more about the boys having a shitty concept, or no concept at all of consent… but that it was ultimately a horrible expression of interest in the girl. But no doubt both are possibilities. And neither is okay.
Boys and men are pretty similar the world over. Some are always going to be creeps who do shit like this, it doesn’t matter what culture they’re in.
So you’re saying they’re criminalizing natural and predictable human behavior
I mean, murder and theft is natural and predictable human behavior under the right circumstances.
Good point.
Nobody said it was natural. Learned behavior reverberates through generations. Especially when it is more than one family that doesn’t frown on such behavior. Cultural norms re-enforce bad behavior as “normal.”
It’s implied when one says that behaviors are the same the world over, spanning cultures and ethnicities.
“They’re just boys being boys, Your Honor!”
What’s the fundamental difference between a deep fake and a good Photoshop and why do we need more laws to regulate that?
The problem is how to actually prevent this. What could one do? Make AI systems illegal? Make graphics tools illegal? Make the Internet illegal? Make computers illegal?
Make “producing real or simulated CSAM illegal?”
Isn’t it already? Has it provided any sort of protection? Many things in this world are illegal, and nobody cares.
deleted by creator
Yes, I would argue that if CSAM was legal, there would be more of it…meaning it being illegal provides a level of protection.
I wonder why are you being downvoted, something being illegal puts fear in most people to not do it.
I’ve been wondering about this lately, but I’m not sure how much of an effect this has. There are millions of people in prison, and many of those will go on to offend again. Making things illegal can be seen as an agreement to a social contract (in a democracy), drive the activity underground (probably good thing in many cases), and prevent businesses (legal entities) from engaging in the activity; but I’m not sure how well it works on an individual level of deterrence. Like, if there were no laws, I can not really think of a law I would break that I wouldn’t already break regardless. I guess I’d just be more open about it.
Though, people who cause harm to others should be removed from society, and ideally, quickly rehabilitated, and released back into society as a productive member.
It is where I’m at. Draw Lisa Simpson nude and you get a visit from the law. Dunno what the punishment is though. A fine? Jail? Can’t say.
Edit: Apparently I was wrong, it has to be a realistic drawing. See here: 2010/0064/COD doc.nr 10335/1/10 REV 1
Lisa Simpson is shambles reading this
What about making depictions of other crimes? Should depictions of theft be illegal? Depictions of murder?
Why should depictions of one crime be made illegal, but depictions of other heinous crimes remain legal?
Because a picture of someone robbing my house doesn’t revictimize me. Even if it’s simulated, every time they run into some rando who recognizes them or every time a potential employer runs a background/social media check, it impacts the victim again
A picture of a cartoon child having sex doesn’t victimize you either, the same way a drawing of a robbery doesn’t victimize you
You mean being raped. What it does is let pedos feel like it’s OK to be pedos.
Lol just like violent video games makes people think it’s ok to be violent in real life?
Who is being victimized with a drawing of Lisa Simpson?
Make anime illegal
By dishing out punishment that really hurts.
Severity of punishment works poorly. Inevitability, on the other hand…
I think in this case less mild punishment would send the appropriate signal that this isn’t just a little joke or a small misdemeanor.
There are still way too many people who believe sexual harassment etc. aren’t that huge of a deal. And I believe the fact that perpetrators so easily get away with it plays into this.
(I am not sure how it is in the US, in my country the consequence of crimes against bodily autonomy are laughable.)
Average American be like
Require consent to take a person’s picture and hold them liable for whatever comes from them putting it on a computer.
That’s a whole fucking can of worms we don’t need to open. Just make faking porn a crime similar to publishing revenge porn.
Nah. Use my image and pay me what I want. If I can’t make a Mickey Mouse movie they shouldn’t be able to make a porn staring me. Does a corporatation have more rights to an image than I have to my image?
That really depends on what you consider “using my image”. Are you going to demand that people pay you because you were wandering around in the background of their family photo or their YouTube video? Will you ask to be compensated when people post group photos that include you on their social media? Does mom owe you money for all those pictures she took of you as a kid?
If I can be identified and it is on a computer attached to the Internet then pay me.
You already need consent to take a persons picture. Did it help in this case? I don’t think so.
Very rarely do you need consent to take peoples pictures
*in the US.
In the US, the thought is that if you are in a public place, you have no presumption of privacy. If you’re walking down the street, or shopping in a grocery store or whatever else, anyone can snap a picture of you.
Other countries have different values and laws such that you may need a person’s permission to photograph them even if they are in a public place.
That thought is a pile of bull crap. If you really think you have zero presumption of privacy then I have the right to follow right behind you with a sign that says “idiot ahead”. Laws like this are so written for the drug war and for big media not for us.
Not saying I agree with it, that’s just the way the laws are written.
A good example of how crappy this law works out is paparazzi. They harass celebrities just to get any halfway decent photo. Then they can sell the photo, the celebrity has no say in the matter. And to make things even worse, if the celebrity happens to use the photo of themselves in any way, the photographer can demand payment because they own the copyright.
And this is exactly what I was talking about. We need tules that say you own your own image.
Sorry, I forgot that the US is decades behind the rest of the world in privacy laws.
Well, maybe you could start with this aspect.
Really? Please show me the signed and notarized letter with the girl’s name on it that says they agree to have their image used for AI porn. Also since she is a minor her legal guardians.
How would you possibly enforce that, or prevent people from just copying publicly available pictures for nefarious usage
It would have to be enforced after getting caught. As an add on charge. Like if an area has a rule against picking locks to commit a crime. You can never be charged with it alone but you can add that on to existing charges.
President Joe Biden signed an executive order in October that, among other things, called for barring the use of generative AI to produce child sexual abuse material or non-consensual “intimate imagery of real individuals.” The order also directs the federal government to issue guidance to label and watermark AI-generated content to help differentiate between authentic and material made by software.
Step in the right direction, I guess.
How is the government going to be able to differentiate authentic images/videos from AI generated ones? Some of the AI images are getting super realistic, to the point where it’s difficult for human eyes to tell the difference.
That’s a cool quiz, and it’s from 2022. I’m sure AI has improved since then. Would love to see an updated version.
I wouldn’t call this a step in the tight direction. A call for a step yeah, but it’s not actually a step until something is actually done
I studied Computer Science so I know that the only way to teach an AI agent to stop drawing naked girls is to… give it pictures of naked girls so it can learn what not to draw :(
hmmm - I wonder it makes sense to use generative AI to create negative training data for things like CP. That would essentially be a victimless way to train the AIs. Of course, that creates the conundrum of who actually verifies the AI-generated training data…
this doesn’t work. AI still needs to know what is CP in order to create CP for negative use. So you need to first feed it with CP. Recent example of how OpenAI was labelling “bad text”
The premise was simple: feed an AI with labeled examples of violence, hate speech, and sexual abuse, and that tool could learn to detect those forms of toxicity in the wild. That detector would be built into ChatGPT to check whether it was echoing the toxicity of its training data, and filter it out before it ever reached the user. It could also help scrub toxic text from the training datasets of future AI models.
To get those labels, OpenAI sent tens of thousands of snippets of text to an outsourcing firm in Kenya, beginning in November 2021. Much of that text appeared to have been pulled from the darkest recesses of the internet. Some of it described situations in graphic detail like child sexual abuse, bestiality, murder, suicide, torture, self harm, and incest.
source: https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
reading this, I don’t really know what is supposed to be protected here to be deemed possible of protections in the first place.
closest reasonable one is the girl’s “identity”, so it could be fraud. but it’s not used to fool people. more likely, those getting the pics already consented this is ai generated.
so might be defamation?
the image generation tech is already easily accessible so the girl’s picture being easily accessible might be the weakest link?
Not a lawyer, but I’ll take a stab. Pretty sure it’s illegal to create sexual images of children, photos or not. It’s also illegal to use someone’s likeness without permission, but admittedly this depends on the state in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights
Thanks for the valuable contribution to this discussion! It does appear this is a question of identity and personality rights, regarding how one wants to be portrayed.
Reading that article though, it seems like that only applies to commercial purposes. If one is making deep fakes for their own non-commercial private use, it doesn’t appear personality rights apply.
Pretty sure it’s illegal to create sexual images of children, photos or not.
Maybe in your distopian countries where drawings are illegal. Absolutely absurd you’re promoting that as a good thing.
I’m not exactly sure what your point is. In the article, a kid created an unwanted sexual depiction of another kid and spread it around. I do think that should be illegal.
Yes but this thread is about just drawings in general. Deep faking someone into porn and spreading it around should absolutely be yourself. But it’s not “child porn”. It’s some type of harassment or defamation or something
I’d say it’s bullying and sexual harassment.
AI legal matters are going to be krazy
