Changing outfits, that's an awesome e-commerce idea , though would be difficult to overlay a specific article of clothing.
However, someone could use the variables of the autoencoder in such a thing to slide between different clothing styles until they find one they like in particular. Then have those clothes made / printed. Voila, haute couture goes AI
You honestly don't know why the person you're replying to is concerned and wants GitHub to remove this? I get some may have a different opinion, but to not even BE AWARE that this raises ethical questions is pretty bizarre.
distributing the images is an ethical concern. Making them? i dont know. Can we ban people for "mentally undressing" someone? Plus this codebase will most certainly be used to make more interesting effects than simply undressing. It is inevitable that future movies will be made by mediocre-looking actors.
It’s more than “an ethical concern”. It’s illegal in some jurisdictions currently and will be illegal in a lot more once legislation catches up with technology.
....there wouldn't be any great loss in this not being available because those people would still be able to be photographed with their actual clothes off.
This is for harassment. Other potential uses are invented by people to try and provide cover for its obvious target use.
Yeah, though removing it from github won't make things better. Some kid would find the code anyway and distribute the app to jailbroken phones. That's why people need to be aware of this app - because if it's not the harassment will be worse.
Less abusive ex-boyfriends and abusive ex-husbands will find it. That's a win for each one of the victims that are spared. So it would make things "better" -- not perfect, but "better". And leaving it on github will make things "worse".
Hmm, quite the contrary i think. Abusive exes will be even more motivated to find and use such an app, at a time when the public will be oblivious to their existence. I think it is inevitable for these kinds of apps and websites to start circulating widely. As always, there will be an initial shock and outrage, after which people will realize it's actually a toy and learn to dismiss it as fake pictures. And if the pictures are really good, i hope this tech can then be used as plausible deniability to someone who had her actual pictures stolen.
I think the “public” are already aware of photoshopping etc. I don’t agree that this tool will primarily serve to make the public more informed. The effect you’re talking about is far smaller than the main effect.
If you really put yourself in the shoes of a victim I believe you’d feel differently.
Maybe so, but this technology allows you to distribute them widely, and even claim that they are real photos. There is no moral equivalence.
If the idea is that this codebase could be used for less ethically questionable purposes, then why was it put on GitHub in its original form, which is clearly designed for producing nudes?
I guess because it's the easiest thing to do, and github the defacto way to give away code. Now, considering that there is very little money to be made from an app that will be banned in app stores, i don't think it's that dangerous.
check out /r/bubbling. No one has banned that either even though it’s non-consensual porn as well and has been for years. I don’t recall any articles written about it.
It suggests that creating porn of people is not always objectionable.
Sorry for misunderstanding. I just think that it would be a clear invasion of privacy, and show a serious lack of respect and decency, to create fake, realistic nudes of someone without permission.
Hrmn. I could be missing something, and I’m generally for freedom and all. But working on this seems like a shitty thing to do. What is this for, other than harassment?
Private "personal use". Creepy, but not harassing if it never leaves the user's computer. Celebrity fakes have existed for decades, it's very possible I'm naive, but I assumed it was for, uh, fantasy aides.
What is your valid and constructive reason for being interested in defending this code? How do you weigh it up in relation to the abuse and harassment that it could be primarily used for?
Over here in the real world, the primary use of this code is for harassment and abuse.
Upholding people's freedom to make authentic looking photos of women without their clothes on, regardless of their consent, is a pretty low form of "speech" and not a hill I'd choose to die on.
It's illegal to use that code for its intended purpose in some jurisdictions (such as the one I'm in) and will be illegal in more once the laws catch up.
If you want to come at this from the anti-porn side - "No longer will broken people be forced to perform pornographic acts"
or
"Previously people lived in fear of previous pornographic acts living on online after they'd moved on - now it's "probably just another of those millions of deep-fakes""
I can think of several potential application, if somewhat unlikely, through most is just adaptation of the original deepfake algorithm.
It could be used as a replacement for stunt doubles. The nude scenes in Game of Throne was not always liked by the acters, and the walk of shame actually used a nude stunt double for some of it (https://ew.com/article/2015/06/18/game-thrones-lena-headey-n...). Deepfake and DeepNude could also replace stun doubles where the scene is too dangerous thus improving safety.
It could be used to create a better base model in animation so that clothing can be added more realistic on top, which could be useful when making remakes/remaster of old movies.
In gaming it could also be used as a faster/better method to create realistic bodies, improving immersion and graphic representation. Nude mods has always been rather popular in RPG's.
In theory we could also see similar algorithms in security to get an estimate body shape in relation to clothing in order to detect hidden weapons.
From Wikipedia: “X-Ray Specs are an American novelty item, purported to allow the user to see through or into solid objects. In reality the glasses merely create an optical illusion; no X-rays are involved. The current paper version is sold under the name "X-Ray Spex"; a similar product is sold under the name "X-Ray Gogs".”
“X-Ray Specs consist of an outsized pair of glasses with plastic frames and white cardboard "lenses" printed with concentric red circles, and emblazoned with the legend "X-RAY VISION".
“The "lenses" consist of two layers of cardboard with a small hole about 6 millimetres (0.24 in) in diameter punched through both layers. The user views objects through the holes. A feather is embedded between the layers of each lens. The vanes of the feathers are so close together that light is diffracted, causing the user to receive two slightly offset images. For instance, if viewing a pencil, one would see two offset images of the pencil. Where the images overlap, a darker image is obtained, supposedly giving the illusion that one is seeing the graphite embedded within the body of the pencil. As may be imagined, the illusion is not particularly convincing.
“X-Ray Specs were long advertised with the slogan "See the bones in your hand, see through clothes!" Some versions of the advertisement featured an illustration of a young man using the X-Ray Specs to examine the bones in his hand while a voluptuous woman stood in the background, as though awaiting her turn to be "X-rayed".
"But after 12 hours of launch, due to viral articles and clickbaits, the software had been hacked and modified. With multiple illecit DeepNude version in the web, anonymous and unknown users, virus and malware, the assumption of security dissolved soon. There are no valid security systems, when hackers from all over the world attack you."
The version they were attempting to sell would watermark the images as fakes; these systems were removed. They decided to open source the project & stop selling it, since they saw no feasible way to prevent these reverse-engineering attacks.
It looks like the writer forgot to omit some .pyc files which disclose their name. Searching for their name and "DeepNude" on Google locates some interesting articles (some of which are removed due to EU data protection laws) with their name, age, and location. Anonymity is hard.
If Rule34 holds true there is a paired dataset that could be used for better results — and yes a quick Google search reveals entire websites dedicated to showing the same person in the same pose with and without clothing.
What this project ignores is that there is a LONG list of people I’d rather see with MORE clothes. Take Kim Kardashian for instance, every time I see her I’m like man wish she was wearing rain boots, a wind breaker, and a trench coat, a parka, a scarf, gloves, a sombrero, sunglasses, hockey mask, basically throw the entire Bass Pro Shop winter catalog at her and give my delicate eyes a break.
53 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadHowever, someone could use the variables of the autoencoder in such a thing to slide between different clothing styles until they find one they like in particular. Then have those clothes made / printed. Voila, haute couture goes AI
This is for harassment. Other potential uses are invented by people to try and provide cover for its obvious target use.
Yeah, though removing it from github won't make things better. Some kid would find the code anyway and distribute the app to jailbroken phones. That's why people need to be aware of this app - because if it's not the harassment will be worse.
If you really put yourself in the shoes of a victim I believe you’d feel differently.
If the idea is that this codebase could be used for less ethically questionable purposes, then why was it put on GitHub in its original form, which is clearly designed for producing nudes?
(2) I'm not calling for government censorship, just saying that GitHub (and by extension Microsoft) shouldn't be giving these people a platform.
> “The new laws also cover photoshopped images – where an image has been altered to look like a person is portrayed in an intimate way.” --http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2019/2/13/revenge-por...
It suggests that creating porn of people is not always objectionable.
I asked you to expand on your comment, that is all.
But just in case, let's clone it so that we can share elsewhere
$ git clone https://github.com/deepinstruction/deepnude_official Cloning into 'deepnude_official'... remote: Enumerating objects: 36, done. remote: Counting objects: 100% (36/36), done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (32/32), done. remote: Total 36 (delta 2), reused 36 (delta 2), pack-reused 0 Unpacking objects: 100% (36/36), done.
People who even look at this are basically outing themselves as terrible people, or utterly devoid of empathy.
Now, what is the reason for using language like 'people who even look at this are ... outing themselves as terrible people'?
Upholding people's freedom to make authentic looking photos of women without their clothes on, regardless of their consent, is a pretty low form of "speech" and not a hill I'd choose to die on.
It's illegal to use that code for its intended purpose in some jurisdictions (such as the one I'm in) and will be illegal in more once the laws catch up.
Id argue that billions of people have more enjoyable lives because of porn.
That’s not to dismiss the potential for misuse.
or
"Previously people lived in fear of previous pornographic acts living on online after they'd moved on - now it's "probably just another of those millions of deep-fakes""
However, I think the consent of the participants is a bare minimum for acceptability, and this seems to violate that directly.
I was answering that question you posed. It's not just for harassment. It's mostly for porn.
It could be used as a replacement for stunt doubles. The nude scenes in Game of Throne was not always liked by the acters, and the walk of shame actually used a nude stunt double for some of it (https://ew.com/article/2015/06/18/game-thrones-lena-headey-n...). Deepfake and DeepNude could also replace stun doubles where the scene is too dangerous thus improving safety.
It could be used to create a better base model in animation so that clothing can be added more realistic on top, which could be useful when making remakes/remaster of old movies.
In gaming it could also be used as a faster/better method to create realistic bodies, improving immersion and graphic representation. Nude mods has always been rather popular in RPG's.
In theory we could also see similar algorithms in security to get an estimate body shape in relation to clothing in order to detect hidden weapons.
From Wikipedia: “X-Ray Specs are an American novelty item, purported to allow the user to see through or into solid objects. In reality the glasses merely create an optical illusion; no X-rays are involved. The current paper version is sold under the name "X-Ray Spex"; a similar product is sold under the name "X-Ray Gogs".”
“X-Ray Specs consist of an outsized pair of glasses with plastic frames and white cardboard "lenses" printed with concentric red circles, and emblazoned with the legend "X-RAY VISION".
“The "lenses" consist of two layers of cardboard with a small hole about 6 millimetres (0.24 in) in diameter punched through both layers. The user views objects through the holes. A feather is embedded between the layers of each lens. The vanes of the feathers are so close together that light is diffracted, causing the user to receive two slightly offset images. For instance, if viewing a pencil, one would see two offset images of the pencil. Where the images overlap, a darker image is obtained, supposedly giving the illusion that one is seeing the graphite embedded within the body of the pencil. As may be imagined, the illusion is not particularly convincing.
“X-Ray Specs were long advertised with the slogan "See the bones in your hand, see through clothes!" Some versions of the advertisement featured an illustration of a young man using the X-Ray Specs to examine the bones in his hand while a voluptuous woman stood in the background, as though awaiting her turn to be "X-rayed".
What does it mean???
Now let's just get over it, shall we?
First person who creates the Chrome plugin that will nudify all photos will be a millionaire.
What this project ignores is that there is a LONG list of people I’d rather see with MORE clothes. Take Kim Kardashian for instance, every time I see her I’m like man wish she was wearing rain boots, a wind breaker, and a trench coat, a parka, a scarf, gloves, a sombrero, sunglasses, hockey mask, basically throw the entire Bass Pro Shop winter catalog at her and give my delicate eyes a break.