I wonder if the Internet and AI generation will lead to a culture change where a picture of someone (real or fake) in a sexual situation will no longer be extortion worthy.
Seems odd that a picture of someone naked can lead to a loss of their job or social circle. I don't think that's a good thing.
I'm not sure AI is even needed for this to occur. Sexting and onlyfans-style hustles have become so normalized with the always-on-camera smartphone generation, the trajectory is clear.
Just a matter of time before the prudes all die off. Progress of this sort tends to be generational... just look at tattoos and weed.
I guess as someone who lived in a long time in a clothing optional community, the idea that people being naked is a bad thing (we are all naked under our clothes) really confuses me.
What about the idea that random people on the internet can produce believable images of your naked body and share it with people who you never consented to share it with?
I suppose not. But if I was in a very Muslim centric country and people were complaining that this software allows pictures of women without a hijab, my first thought would be the same: why is that such a bad thing?
I mean the article itself says people are willing to pay extortion money than risk even fictional depictions of their naked bodies.
The problem is they don't consent to the depiction. Naked or no, it's not nice to depict people in ways they don't like, and it's _really_ not nice to do it ways they _strongly_ object to. You can argue that they shouldn't mind it and maybe that makes sense but that's not the world we live in.
I'm not arguing that extorting people or making them feel violated is right. I'm arguing that our social norms are what allow this sort of exploitation to happen and we should examine our collective responsibility for it.
Every society has different norms. The society I live in objectifies nude people, especially women and sex workers, as loose and not respectable. So, for us it is humilating and degrading (see how victims are talked about after sex tape scandals). It is worse when it shows you intimate with someone else. I've been looked at as an object of desire before instead of a human and it felt terrifying. And I was wearing clothes. All in all, nudity is not the problem but what happens after.
Isn’t the ubiquitousness of services like this an actual “cure”? If its easy to make those deep fake nudes and everybody has one, then it will not be as scary and shameful, And we can finally get on with our lives with one less thing to stress about? God knows we have enough other things to occupy us anyway.
To a certain degree it is true. More and more people know how photoshopped influencer posts are. Sadly, that is not the majority and even if they knew, they would not care. Those who want to oppress will shame others to exercise power, which is why the mindset of guilty until proven innocent is still prevalent. The cure to it is to reduce the power imbalance in society. How is difficult as violence has many forms and hidden behind a friendly facade (e.g. toxic positivy, forced diversity). So, from my perspective nudity itself is not the problem. As an example where nudity is accepted are nudity beaches in Germany.
Well of course it shouldn't. One should be able to draw whatever they wish. I'm really not comfortable saying there is a particular thing that someone just can't draw with a pencil.
Furthermore, I'd gladly donate bath time photos of myself as a prepubescent child if it means that some unlucky soul who has the misfortune of being born a pedophile can enjoy something he or she might consider sexually gratifying. Something that will keep him or her content instead of seeking non-consenting children IRL. We should all be feeding people like this synthesized (or donated) sexual material. The idea of withholding it for some messed up reason only serves to put innocent children at risk.
we have Photoshop for long time already, and celebrities that didn't pose nude are photoshopped constantly
most of the time all you need is replacement model with similar enough body and all you have to do is face swap.
I think that all we need now is something in reverse, generating clothed photos from nude, so in case someone really leaked your nudes you could show them that this is fake from other clothed photo.
If someone sits in a public park and paints a nude picture with my face on it, do I need to consent? I probably don’t even know it exists. I expect the harm would be greater if a bunch of perverts/artistic souls sought me out and asked consent for things that don’t require my consent.
Or should we require consent before someone dreams of us? Or imagines us?
I’m curious how frequently this happens, but I expect quite a bit. In high school locker rooms, I remember kids talking about pretty much every other student nude, etc etc. Should that require consent? What’s the line? When someone draws it? Or generates it? Or when they distribute it?
I think the legal limit now is based on defamation so the harm is when the fake is presented as real.
I am not proposing that anyone "need" consent for any of this. I'm saying that engaging in it without consent just makes you an asshole, as is true with several of the examples you just provided.
Yep, painting a pornographic nude of someone you saw in the park is creepy, weird, disrespectful, and yes you should be called a weird, disrespectful creep for doing it. Should you go to jail? No. Is there a (blurry, hard to define) line between disrespectful nude depictions and respectful ones? Yep.
This service, for example, is clearly geared toward equipping weird, disrespectful creeps.
Alternative perspective - believable AI-generated nudes completely eliminate the risk of "revenge porn" or embarrassment from leaked photos.
If someone can say "Hey Siri, generate a picture of Alice and Bob fornicating" and get a realistic image, then neither Alice nor Bob ever need to worry about their private photos being hacked, leaked, shared, etc. They can just laugh and say the image is a fake.
It's a huge win for everyone in the long term, the perfect counter to privacy invasion - simply bury any real private information in a mountain of fakes. Oh you think got my medical record, my tax return, my nudes, my private texts, my performance reviews? Which ones? Here's 500 equally plausible alternative versions of all of those.
It seems like a more effective blackmail scheme than "here's some obviously AI generated images of you, imagine the shame!" would be "you uploaded pics to deepnude.cc on June 6 and we used facial recognition to find out it's your coworker. Should we tell them?"
It’s funny as I remember as a kid people would argue against the sports illustrated swimsuit edition because it let people imagine the women without closed and that’s just wrong.
And I wondered if places that require women to wear coverings had the same logic (ie,”if people see too much ankle they can imagine a bare leg”).
My school once got penalized in a cheerleading competition because the uniforms only went over the knees instead of the other teams where it went to their ankles. What was the point as both wore bloomers underneath.
However, I think it’s the idea of stopping people from thinking lascivious thoughts. I think it’s a losing battle as people have great imagination.
I would have a problem if these deepnude sites had X-ray vision or something, but just predicting what someone looks like nude is hard to stop. Can you even make it illegal to imagine someone nude? I think we’ll find out soon in the next 20 years as people start adding “nude mode” to Apple Vision and Teams where all the attractive people appear nude.
37 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 92.8 ms ] threadSeems odd that a picture of someone naked can lead to a loss of their job or social circle. I don't think that's a good thing.
Just a matter of time before the prudes all die off. Progress of this sort tends to be generational... just look at tattoos and weed.
[1] (NSFW) https://deepnude.cc
Come on, it’s not that difficult.
I mean the article itself says people are willing to pay extortion money than risk even fictional depictions of their naked bodies.
Maybe its time we reassess our culture...
That’s all these things are, just imaginations.
Like by this logic synthesized nudity of real children shouldn’t be a problem, right?
Furthermore, I'd gladly donate bath time photos of myself as a prepubescent child if it means that some unlucky soul who has the misfortune of being born a pedophile can enjoy something he or she might consider sexually gratifying. Something that will keep him or her content instead of seeking non-consenting children IRL. We should all be feeding people like this synthesized (or donated) sexual material. The idea of withholding it for some messed up reason only serves to put innocent children at risk.
most of the time all you need is replacement model with similar enough body and all you have to do is face swap.
I think that all we need now is something in reverse, generating clothed photos from nude, so in case someone really leaked your nudes you could show them that this is fake from other clothed photo.
In what way would consent be required?
If someone sits in a public park and paints a nude picture with my face on it, do I need to consent? I probably don’t even know it exists. I expect the harm would be greater if a bunch of perverts/artistic souls sought me out and asked consent for things that don’t require my consent.
Or should we require consent before someone dreams of us? Or imagines us?
I’m curious how frequently this happens, but I expect quite a bit. In high school locker rooms, I remember kids talking about pretty much every other student nude, etc etc. Should that require consent? What’s the line? When someone draws it? Or generates it? Or when they distribute it?
I think the legal limit now is based on defamation so the harm is when the fake is presented as real.
Yep, painting a pornographic nude of someone you saw in the park is creepy, weird, disrespectful, and yes you should be called a weird, disrespectful creep for doing it. Should you go to jail? No. Is there a (blurry, hard to define) line between disrespectful nude depictions and respectful ones? Yep.
This service, for example, is clearly geared toward equipping weird, disrespectful creeps.
If someone can say "Hey Siri, generate a picture of Alice and Bob fornicating" and get a realistic image, then neither Alice nor Bob ever need to worry about their private photos being hacked, leaked, shared, etc. They can just laugh and say the image is a fake.
It's a huge win for everyone in the long term, the perfect counter to privacy invasion - simply bury any real private information in a mountain of fakes. Oh you think got my medical record, my tax return, my nudes, my private texts, my performance reviews? Which ones? Here's 500 equally plausible alternative versions of all of those.
And I wondered if places that require women to wear coverings had the same logic (ie,”if people see too much ankle they can imagine a bare leg”).
My school once got penalized in a cheerleading competition because the uniforms only went over the knees instead of the other teams where it went to their ankles. What was the point as both wore bloomers underneath.
However, I think it’s the idea of stopping people from thinking lascivious thoughts. I think it’s a losing battle as people have great imagination.
I would have a problem if these deepnude sites had X-ray vision or something, but just predicting what someone looks like nude is hard to stop. Can you even make it illegal to imagine someone nude? I think we’ll find out soon in the next 20 years as people start adding “nude mode” to Apple Vision and Teams where all the attractive people appear nude.