L4sBotA.I. Is Making the Sexual Exploitation of Girls Even Worse
RainfallSonataBut they’re banning printed books in libraries instead…
Can’t exploit kids as easily when they know what exploitation is.
I’ve always taken the “protect our children” argument to have an implied “…from the knowledge that will actually protect them from abusers” based on the things the argument is trotted out for.
☂️-always be wary when they say either “protect the children” or " for your safety"
This is a human problem, not an AI problem.
Maybe if we hadn’t neglected it for the past century…
It’s both.
Ai is definitely making things worse. When I was at school there was no tool for creating a deep fake of girls, now boys sneek a pic and use an app to undress them. That then gets shared, girls find out and obviously become distressed. Without ai boys would have to either sneak into toilets/changing rooms or psychically remove girls clothes. Neither of which was happening at such a large degree in a school before as it would create a shit show.
Also most jurisdictions don’t actually have strict AI laws yet which is making it harder for authorities to deal with. If you genuinely believe that AI isn’t at fault here then you’re ignorant of what’s happening around the world.
theguardian.com/…/clothoff-deepfake-ai-pornograph… That’s an article about one company that provides an app for deep fakes. It’s a shell corp so not easy to shut down through the law and arrest people, also hundreds of teenage girls have been affected by others creating non consensual nudes of them.
Ai is definitely making things worse. When I was at school there was no tool for creating a deep fake of girls, now boys sneek a pic and use an app to undress them. That then gets shared, girls find out and obviously become distressed. Without ai boys would have to either sneak into toilets/changing rooms or psychically remove girls clothes.
I'm sorry but this is bullshit. You could "photoshop" someone's face / head onto someone else's body already before "AI" was a thing. Here's a tutorial that allows you to do this within minutes, seconds if you know what you're doing: https://www.photopea.com/tuts/swap-faces-online/
That's an article about one company that provides an app for deep fakes. It's a shell corp so not easy to shut down through the law and arrest people, also hundreds of teenage girls have been affected by others creating non consensual nudes of them.
Also very ignorant take. You can download Stable Diffusion for free and add a face swapper to that too. Generating decent looking bodies actually might take you longer than just taking a nude photo of someone and using my previous editing method though.
You could do everything before, that’s true, but you needed knowledge/time/effort, so the phenomenon was very limited. Now that it’s easy, the number of victims (if we can call them that) is huge. And that changes things. It’s always been wrong. Now it’s also a problem
BringMeTheDiscoKingThis is right. To do it before you had to be a bit smart and motivated. That’s a smaller cross section of people. Now any nasty fuck with an app on their phone can bully and harass their classmates.
I'm not sure you listened to what I said or even attempted it yourself. The time / effort here is very similar, both methods have their own quirks that make them better or worse than the other, both methods however are very fast and very easy to do. In both cases the result should just be ignored as far as personal feelings go, and reported as far as legal matters go, or report things to your teachers. You don't need special laws to file for harassment or even possible blackmail.
This whole thing is just overblown fake hysteria and media panic because "AI" is such a hot topic at the moment. In a few years this will all go away again because no one really cares that much and real leaked nudes will possibly even declared a deepfake to confuse people.
This whole thing is just overblown fake hysteria and media panic because "AI" is such a hot topic at the moment. In a few years this will all go away again because no one really cares that much and real leaked nudes will possibly even declared a deepfake to confuse people.
The time / effort here is very similar, both methods have their own quirks that make them better or worse than the other, both methods however are very fast and very easy to do.
You’re lying to yourself and you must know that, or you’re just making false assumptions. But let’s go through this step by step.
Now with a “nudify” app:
- install a free app
- snap a picture
- click a button
- you have a fake nude
Before:
- snap a picture
- go to a PC
- buy Photoshop for $ 30.- / month (sure) or search for a pirated version, dowload a crack, install it and pray that it works
- find a picture that fits with the person you’ve photographed
- read a guide online
- try to do it
- you have (maybe) a bad fake nude
That’s my fist point. Second:
the result should just be ignored as far as personal feelings go
Tell it to the girl who killed herself because everyone thought that her “nudes” were actual nudes. People do not work how you think they do.
You don’t need special laws to file for harassment or even possible blackmail. This whole thing is just overblown fake hysteria and media panic because “AI” is such a hot topic at the moment
True, you probably don’t need new laws. But the emergence of generative AI warrants a public discussion about its consequences. There IS a lot of hype around AI, but generative AI is here and is having/will have a tangible impact. You can be an AI skeptic but also recognise that some things are actually happening.
In a few years this will all go away again because no one really cares that much and real leaked nudes will possibly even declared a deepfake to confuse people.
For this to happen, things will have to get WAY worse before they get better. And that means people will suffer and possibly kill themselves, like it’s already happened. Are we ready to let that happen?
Also we’re talking only about fake nudes, but if you think about the fact that GenAI is going to spread throughout every aspect of our world, your point becomes even more absurd
buy Photoshop for $ 30.- / month (sure) or search for a pirated version, dowload a crack, install it and pray that it works
I literally gave you a tutorial to a free web app and you come here with a massive bad faith text wall that starts with "you must buy / pirate literal photoshop to do image editing". Sorry but the difficulty that you are seeing here is not the method but the thing in front of your monitor.
find a picture that fits with the person you've photographed
read a guide online
try to do it
you have (maybe) a bad fake nude
Speaking of lying to oneself... Where's your several attempt of nudifying just to figure out that you actually need a good photo too, with good lighting, clothes having a good contrast with the background, a pose that is probably frontal and without arms obstructing, and then pray the model can manage to draw a half decently realistic looking body over it without any artifacts or mutations. Generative models like these aren't magic and have many faults and you clearly show that you have absolutely no clue about that topic if you think you can just snap a picture and press a button.
Tell it to the girl who killed herself because everyone thought that her leaked "nudes" were actual nudes. People do not work how you think they do.
As tragic as that is, a photoshopped picture would've resulted in the same outcome and you can probably even find such cases if you dig through old news articles too.
But the emergence of generative AI warrants a public discussion about its consequences.
No, it only shows that we've slept on law enforcement related to digital topics for decades, thanks to all the boomers in politics who have even less of a clue about that topic than people like you, and all those who ridiculed everyone using computers before they eventually reached mainstream audiences.
The problem here is also that fear mongering and dishonest "discussions" like this only lead to draconian overbearing laws that will end up really hurting the wrong end of it, while not doing much if anything for the actual issue behind it, which isn't generative "AI" or manual photo editing. It's akin to using the topics of terrorism or child pornography to ban things like encryption or implement web filters, or other highly invasive mass surveillance methods such as data logging or things like facial recognition.
Are we ready to let that happen?
I mean, I'm not, as I wasn't even before harassment of this type was a thing just without the "AI" aspects of it. But you all were ready to let it happen, again, until the "AI" aspects of it started to cause the media hysteria. If you dig through articles of cases like this or of similar nature, like cyber-bullying was a popular umbrella term before, then you find that people simply did not take this kinda stuff seriously, causing those acts to go by unpunished. And that was, and still is, the main issue of it. Many, if not most countries don't even give you as a person the rights to an image of yourself. How can you then expect that someone editing photos of someone and publishing that without the photographed person's consent being legally liable? After all, what crime would they have committed if the exposed person on the picture isn't even real except for maybe the head, which was publicly visible at the time of the photo too?
Also we're talking only about fake nudes, but if you think about the fact that GenAI is going to spread throughout every aspect of our world, your point becomes even more absurd
Here's the thing: This is going to happen either way. That's why we need to understand that we rather have to find ways to live with it. You could ban generative models, but that would mostly just stop the legal usage, while others would just continue to use it illegally. Maybe your average inept zoomer kid would have trouble finding an app for his smartphone to do it, but it would still happen.
tsonfeirWhen I was a kid I used to draw dirty pictures and beat off to them. AI image creation is a paint brush.
I very much disagree with using it to make convincing deepfakes of real people, but I struggle with laws restricting its use otherwise. Are images of ALL crimes illegal, or just the ones people dislike? Murder? I’d call that the worst crime, but we sure do love murder images.
Photoshop has existed for quite some time. Take photo, google naked body, paste face on body. The ai powered bit just makes it slightly easier. I don’t want a future where my device is locked down and surveiled to the point I can’t install what I want on it. Neither should the common man be excluded from taking advantage of these tools. This is a people problem. Maybe culture needs to change. Limit phone use in schools. Technical solutions will likely only bring worse problems. There are probably no lazy solutions here. This is not one of those problems you can just hand over to some company and tell them to figure it out.
This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥Photoshop has existed for quite some time. Take photo, google naked body, paste face on body. The ai powered bit just makes it slightly easier.
Slightly easier? That’s a one hell of an understatement. Have you ever used Stable Diffusion?
Though I could get behind making it illegal to upload and store someone’s likeness unless explicit consent was given. That is long overdue. Though some big companies would not get behind that.
But many big companies would love it. Basically, it turns a likeness into intellectual property. Someone who pirates a movie, would also be pirating likenesses. The copyright industry would love it; the internet industry not so much,
Licensing their likeness - giving consent after receiving money, if you prefer - would also be a new income stream for celebrities. They could license their likeness for any movie or show and get a pretty penny without having to even show up. They would just be deep-faked onto some skilled, low-paid double.
AI is a genie that can’t be put back into its bottle.
Now that it exists you can make it go away with laws. If you tried, at best all you’d do is push it to sketchy servers hosted outside of the jurisdiction of whatever laws you passed.
AI is making it easier than it was before to (ab)use someone by creating a nude (or worse) with their face. That is a genuine problem, it existed before AI, and it’s getting worse.
I’m not saying you have like it, but if you think laws will make that unavailable you’re dreaming.
ClotIts bad for sexual exploitation of any gender,
but mostly girls
I wonder why it is that girls evolved to be sexy but not also men.
Are… both genders currently being exploited equally?
Should they?
That’s the “all lives matter” argument, and it’s disingenuous.
If billionaires are being forced to pay unfair yacht fees, that’s a problem. But that doesn’t mean it’s as immediate and important an issue as starving children, and obviously shouldn’t be prioritized the same. That’s just an example, but “major in the majors”, as my mom taught me…
Ignoring the fact that it does happen is the same as ignoring mental health for men, or when Google does this shit…
Starting to lose more and more respect for Lemmy’s userbase as time goes on
In discussions of this issue I’ve come to the conclusion that a not-small portion of those participating in said discussion would probably be doing the exploiting. I guess I’m just too old (as in, over 25) or too “normal” for Lemmy.
Just because people are talking about one issue right now doesn’t mean that they don’t care about other issues. Pointing out the obvious that nobody should be sexually exploited is doing nothing other than shifting the topic away from the original issue. Hence, the “all lives matter” comparison.
The person you replied to is doing the same thing. Nobody should be sexually exploited, and there’s tons of issues surrounding men’s mental health and abuse. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about AI being used to deepfake nudes and sexually explicit material, which disproportionately affects women.
If they had come in here to talk about men who had had this happen to them, that would be one thing. But they didn’t. They came in here to minimize the impact the issue has on a specific group and to complain about how nobody is talking about a separate issue, respectively.
MicrowAre you really comparing young boys to billionaires? Wtf is wrong with you?
Yes, there are fewer boys who are affected by this than girls. But they are in no way privileged in their every day life if they become victims of this.
Reading comprehension fail. ☹️
It's not, but I'm not in the mood to argue with Ameritards and their idiotic culture war bullshit. You can keep that shit on your side of the ocean.
“both”
Why are you assuming there are only 2 genders?
Get to stepping, girls! It’s free real estate.
Totally agree! It’s unfortunate that we live in a sexist ass society that would down vote a post like this! Sexual exploitation is bad regardless of gender and there should be nothing controversial about that!
Paywall. Nope. Exploit those girls with your AI then. The messages against it can’t be heard without money.
Why do you think that journalists don’t deserve to get paid? People on Lemmy are even more entitled than people on Reddit.
The messages against it can’t be heard without money.
You shouldn’t need an article to tell you not to exploit people.
SybilWhy do you think that journalists don’t deserve to get paid?
they didn’t say that. you’re making a leap of logic and putting words in their mouth
Obviously they didn’t say exactly that, but how else are they supposed to earn money?
sell their stories to newspapers
And those newspapers make money through magic?
KairuByteAdvertising?
Ads that pay enough are quite terrible for privacy though and why should manipulative ads be the only way you are allowed to finance your news? Plus the fact that a lot of people use adblockers (me included)
I agree that paywalls are annoying I also like free stuff, but crying about it like they did is just so entitled.
Many of these companies are asking for a substantially high price when someone may want to view an article as low as once or twice a month. NYT has a monthly cost of ~$25/month, is that a fair ask to read the odd article someone happens to post?
25 USD? I pay 3 USD EUR for their everything included tier.
The question is if a service should be priced for those that very rarely use it.
No other subscription is priced in a way that assumes that you will use it once a month.
You can also read like 5 articles a month for free if you registered.
Btw New York Times has a feature where any paid subscriber can “gift” an article to anybody so they can read it for free without registering or it counting toward the free limit. You can gift 10 articles every calendar month and there is seemingly no limit to how many can use one gift link. The links expire after 30 days though. Which I think is fair enough.
I have already posted a gift link above if you want to read the article.
Their current “deal” is $1 a week billed at $4 every 4 weeks, their standard price is $25 for a 4 week period. You can verify this easily by checking their site.
I’m neither registering for them to harvest my personal data, nor paying them to do the same.
Paywalls are BS, and just as bad as ads on the internet. Even if they are “free” ways to get limited access.
I’m neither registering for them to harvest my personal data, nor paying them to do the same.
Yet you want ads lol.
Why would you pay full price? It’s way cheaper to find a good deal and then cancel after it runs out and then renew when they offer you the deal again, because they likely will.
If paywalls are just as bad as ads, I’m assuming you just want it for free.
Again, it’s just an entitled attitude.
I’d rather not waste my time chasing around deals when paywall bypasses exist.
No, that’s fair. I am not arguing about that.
I don’t give a shit if you pay or not. It’s just the attitude of idiots here that’s crazy entitled.
I don’t give a fuck. sell subscriptions, push ads, whatever. but if you deny access based on an ability to pay, what you have to say isn’t worth my time.
Isn’t most things in life restricted on ones ability or will to pay?
Hence why I don’t own hardly anything, fuck consumerism
this seems like an is/ought problem
I can’t believe you’re pushing that dumb take in the same comment that you’re suggesting the newspapers sell subscriptions. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.
The internet has made people feel very entitled to every form of content.
If you feel these organizations and their posts aren’t worth your time, stop commenting on them like a smug edgelord without actual solutions.
I’m not experiencing any cognitive dissonance. I said what I meant.
They already make money on the ads, and of course you have to make an account, so they sell your info… and then they fire the journalists…
I would pay for a good source of real new that didn’t have ads and didn’t sell my info. But they don’t exist.
Novara media stream 6pm weekdays on YouTube, UK based news, free but with a supporter donation model
What ads? I don’t see any ads.
Their privacy policy also doesn’t seem too bad compared to most services.
and of course you have to make an account, so they sell your info… and then they fire the journalists…
What are you talking about? Do you think a 170 year old newspaper is an exit scam designed to get personal data, sell it, and then fuck off?
I encountered many New York times articles behind a paywall. I was :o that this wasn’t behind a paywall for me.
I use archive.md for paywalls.
I hope the New York times doesn’t sell user data. If it does, public fury can move it from being 1 of the top news sites to the bottom.
Conversely why do I need to pay to read the opinion section?
Hey can you put that comment behind a paywall? I don’t want to read it
If you think your message is important, you shouldn’t bury it. Their message isn’t important. Their message is just to bring in money. “Journalists” can fuck right off. A real journalist is someone in the right place at the right time and telling about it because it’s important, not to make a career out of it. Consider Karl Jobst. He’s a journalist. He’s even getting paid. You know what he’s not doing? That’d be sitting in an office promoting a website with a subscription fee. Jobbers are not journalists.