What's damaging about someone generating nudes of me? People have been able to paint convincing nudes of people for centuries. I don't understand this. If anything, it might stop nudity being taboo.
It is ethically wrong and downright illegal if it involves children. Yeah, photoshop fake nudes have existed forever, and no one can stop people imagining other people nude. But that does not make it any better.
I wonder if fake nudes can be covered under libel or defamation laws.
Why is it ethically wrong to see naked children? It's not in my culture, it's considered very normal, and kids here run around naked and nobody bats an eyelid.
If you're talking about child porn, I'd rather pedophiles generate all the AI porn they want, rather than molest actual children.
It's not just pedophiles. It seems like boys are targeting girls of the same age and producing child pornography using AI generated video. From the article:
> Last year, a New Jersey high school student launched a campaign for federal legislation to address AI generated pornographic images after she said photos of her and 30 other female classmates were manipulated and possibly shared online.
> Francesca Mani, a student at Westfield High School, expressed frustration over the lack of legal recourse to protect victims of AI-generated pornography. Her mother told CNN it appeared “a boy or some boys” in the community created the images without the girls’ consent.
In the US, minors attend high school from ages 14 to 18. Francesca Mani was 14 years old when this happened in the fall of 2023 [0].
We're at the turning point where fake video was, until very recently, extremely expensive to produce (at least compared to the resources a high schooler has), and thus a naked video of a high school girl was basically real.
In a year or two, when there will be apps that can produce a naked video of anyone with just a clothed photo of them, nobody will believe these videos any more, just like nobody believes now that a photo of a dragon is proof that dragons really exist.
For most of the existing cultures nudity is a taboo, a sin, even a crime!
In Germany you can go to try he public sauna where everyone are naked: kids, their parents, grandparents, strangers etc. And they are ok with it meanwhile foreigners getting a panic attack.
AI images are by no means sharing people's private photos online; they're creating a false equivalent while using whatever data is available in the interest of accuracy.
photogenerative AI isn't x-ray specs, it's a guess. That's exactly the difference here that people seem to ignore when making up hypothetical situations to compare it to.
Make up whatever AI image you want with my face plastered onto it, it still won't know what I have in my pants. Let's hope that I get a good seed number!
"What's damaging?" I'm having a really hard time following HN rules and assuming this statement has been made in good faith. That's going to come through. Sorry, but not that sorry.
Women are regularly at risk of being fired from their jobs for the mere accusation of doing sex acts for pay. How would they convince anybody that they're fake without victimizing themselves further?
How will children - young girls who are already at risk of suicide due to body image issues - convince their bullies that the dozens of photos generated of them are fake?
Convincing AI images can be produced and distributed at volume by anyone with a cell phone. Any statement that this is no different from an artist painting a nude is disingenuous at best.
You can't both say "how will a woman convince someone images of her are fake" and "fake images can be generated at scale by anyone with a mobile phone".
If anyone can produce fake nudes of anyone else with one click, why would any of them be believed? If I didn't want my nudes to have power, I'd flood the world with fake ones.
We don't live in that ideal world. We will probably never live in that world, no matter how much "logical" sense it makes. Because we're people, not machines.
And for better or worse, most indistinguishable nudes of people were real up until these past few months. Convincing folks that such a monumental change has happened is going to be effectively impossible in a reasonable timeframe that will save jobs and lives.
I disagree. I think that, in the next two years, most young people won't believe any random nude photo they see to be real. It's already happening with art.
Sure, in small niche communities that people who care about AI art care about. The broader world - and more importantly schools - has no idea that this is a thing. Our tech jobs put us in a really terrible bubble, and this kind of statement doubles down on the statements reverberating through our echo chamber.
Heck, the sentiment expressed in the original statement has shown up in every single post about AI nudes since they first started getting reported on.
Just yesterday we had some millions of people downloading and viewing Taylor Swift porn. Think they knew it was all generated by AI? Think they cared if they already wanted ammo to use against Taylor Swift?
that world is already fading away -- the public is being so oversaturated in AI images that real art is bringing up criticisms for being AI generated; when everyone thinks everything is AI generated, which is becoming increasingly the case with any picture or text medium , the world that judges every single photo online to assess a person can no longer exist.
> the world that judges every single photo online to assess a person can no longer exist.
Outside of the tech bubble, it's going to exist for lifetimes. Most people already don't care enough to educate themselves about what is real and fake when it validates their biases; cries of "this is AI generated" will be just another "fake news" magnet.
Let's have a cartoon of Stavros killing {Jews,Palestinians} uploaded to the relevant websites, and then we can talk again. It doesn't have to be nudity to be damaging, some cultures are more permissive with nudity and less so with swastikas, but one shouldn't make pictures of anyone without their consent. Yes, it's bad business for Ring and Nextdoor, but better for society in general.
How can this reasonably be stopped? The software is out there, and it's not like you can crack down on all the porn that's passed around and posted on the internet. You certainly can't stop private use.
I've been thinking about this and there will likely be economic pressure to put filters as close to bare metal as possible. This means companies producing the hardware that is capable of generating the images will likely have special chips dedicated to filtering illegal content from even being generated. It will only take a trusted company with the proven technology to license it out and for governments to mandate it in the future. It won't completely stop it, but it may largely be successful in eradicating 99% of it from the public internet.
This will open up all sorts of debates about speech, etc. But that's another topic of discussion for me.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Wait. Let’s say you are an artist who can paint by hand, and you paint a nude of someone using your imagination, is that actually illegal? Assuming a western jurisdiction, I assume there might be a lot of variation here.
people legitimately practice painting nudes from images or models all the time
The problem comes with dissemination and intent.
Paint a nude and share it on your art website, ok - post it on the school’s chat group and send it to the models friends and family after you breakup ? Not ok
Ethically or legally? I guess I get that it might not be right, and probably against a lot of TOSes, but I don't see how criminal or even civil law would come into play here.
>Paint a nude and share it on your art website, ok - post it on the school’s chat group and send it to the models friends and family after you breakup ? Not ok
I'm not familiar with that social precedent being set.
Plenty of nude paints/statues/etc were made posthumously, and tons of them are now permanent monuments in public museums.
Few gave permission, but we as a society seem to think that's okay given our widespread dissemination of the art.
also the motivation matters : these works weren't made for reasons of malice, generally speaking.
You can’t stop public use but you can make it so that any account posting AI porn of someone without their consent gets auto reported to the police or at least automatically filtered out. Also I think it’s a recency thing, in a few years no one will care if someone makes AI porn of you other than to get mad at the person who made it if it was done without consent.
The problem here is not the nudity itself, the problem is consent. Since the photograph we've had 6 catgeories of nude pictures centered around consent.
A: real, consensual, and meant to be in public (ie porn)
B: real, consensual but not meant to be in public (ie revenge porn)
C: real, nonconsensual
D: fake, consensual, in public (very rare, usually for humor or shock effect)
E: fake, consensual, not meant in public (extremely rare, but it is a category)
F: fake, noncensual (ie this article)
The two major challenges today are
* there is no consent attached to photos, so viewers infer consent,
* and many people will incorrectly classify category F as category A, which is a form of reputational harm.
53 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 98.6 ms ] threadI wonder if fake nudes can be covered under libel or defamation laws.
Right, wrong, indifferent - this is where society is heading.
seek help.
(Maybe you missed the "wrong or indifferent" part? Maybe you're looking for a fight?)
I was recently accused of supporting one side or another of a war for discussing/analyzing the incentives of the warring parties.
This is pretty similar to that.
If you're talking about child porn, I'd rather pedophiles generate all the AI porn they want, rather than molest actual children.
> Last year, a New Jersey high school student launched a campaign for federal legislation to address AI generated pornographic images after she said photos of her and 30 other female classmates were manipulated and possibly shared online.
> Francesca Mani, a student at Westfield High School, expressed frustration over the lack of legal recourse to protect victims of AI-generated pornography. Her mother told CNN it appeared “a boy or some boys” in the community created the images without the girls’ consent.
In the US, minors attend high school from ages 14 to 18. Francesca Mani was 14 years old when this happened in the fall of 2023 [0].
[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/04/us/new-jersey-high-school-dee...
In a year or two, when there will be apps that can produce a naked video of anyone with just a clothed photo of them, nobody will believe these videos any more, just like nobody believes now that a photo of a dragon is proof that dragons really exist.
In Germany you can go to try he public sauna where everyone are naked: kids, their parents, grandparents, strangers etc. And they are ok with it meanwhile foreigners getting a panic attack.
Ps: free the nipples!
Are they ok with that or are you telling me they are to prudish for that ?
photogenerative AI isn't x-ray specs, it's a guess. That's exactly the difference here that people seem to ignore when making up hypothetical situations to compare it to.
Make up whatever AI image you want with my face plastered onto it, it still won't know what I have in my pants. Let's hope that I get a good seed number!
And what if it does? How do you dismiss it ?
“That’s not me guys, I swear”
Suddenly it became a problem now?
Women are regularly at risk of being fired from their jobs for the mere accusation of doing sex acts for pay. How would they convince anybody that they're fake without victimizing themselves further?
How will children - young girls who are already at risk of suicide due to body image issues - convince their bullies that the dozens of photos generated of them are fake?
Convincing AI images can be produced and distributed at volume by anyone with a cell phone. Any statement that this is no different from an artist painting a nude is disingenuous at best.
If anyone can produce fake nudes of anyone else with one click, why would any of them be believed? If I didn't want my nudes to have power, I'd flood the world with fake ones.
And for better or worse, most indistinguishable nudes of people were real up until these past few months. Convincing folks that such a monumental change has happened is going to be effectively impossible in a reasonable timeframe that will save jobs and lives.
Heck, the sentiment expressed in the original statement has shown up in every single post about AI nudes since they first started getting reported on.
Just yesterday we had some millions of people downloading and viewing Taylor Swift porn. Think they knew it was all generated by AI? Think they cared if they already wanted ammo to use against Taylor Swift?
Outside of the tech bubble, it's going to exist for lifetimes. Most people already don't care enough to educate themselves about what is real and fake when it validates their biases; cries of "this is AI generated" will be just another "fake news" magnet.
This will open up all sorts of debates about speech, etc. But that's another topic of discussion for me.
If you undress someone in your head that’s private but you don’t have the right paint, photograph or generate and share it in public
The problem comes with dissemination and intent.
Paint a nude and share it on your art website, ok - post it on the school’s chat group and send it to the models friends and family after you breakup ? Not ok
I'm not familiar with that social precedent being set.
Plenty of nude paints/statues/etc were made posthumously, and tons of them are now permanent monuments in public museums.
Few gave permission, but we as a society seem to think that's okay given our widespread dissemination of the art.
also the motivation matters : these works weren't made for reasons of malice, generally speaking.
A: real, consensual, and meant to be in public (ie porn)
B: real, consensual but not meant to be in public (ie revenge porn)
C: real, nonconsensual
D: fake, consensual, in public (very rare, usually for humor or shock effect)
E: fake, consensual, not meant in public (extremely rare, but it is a category)
F: fake, noncensual (ie this article)
The two major challenges today are
* there is no consent attached to photos, so viewers infer consent,
* and many people will incorrectly classify category F as category A, which is a form of reputational harm.