196
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Julia, 21, has received fake nude photos of herself generated by artificial intelligence. The phenomenon is exploding.

"I'd already heard about deepfakes and deepnudes (...) but I wasn't really aware of it until it happened to me. It was a slightly anecdotal event that happened in other people's lives, but it wouldn't happen in mine", thought Julia, a 21-year-old Belgian marketing student and semi-professional model.

At the end of September 2023, she received an email from an anonymous author. Subject: "Realistic? "We wonder which photo would best resemble you", she reads.

Attached were five photos of her.

In the original content, posted on her social networks, Julia poses dressed. In front of her eyes are the same photos. Only this time, Julia is completely naked.

Julia has never posed naked. She never took these photos. The Belgian model realises that she has been the victim of a deepfake.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nexusband@lemmy.world 44 points 2 years ago

This is going to be a serious issue in the future - either society changes and these things are going to be accepted or these kind of generating ai models have to be banned. But that's still not going to be a "security" against it...

I also think we have to come up with digital watermarks that are easy to use...

[-] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 29 points 2 years ago

Honestly, I see it as kinda freeing. Now people don't have to worry about nudes leaking any more, since you can just say they're fake. Somebody starts sending around deepfakes of me? OK, whatever, weirdo, it's not real.

[-] DadVolante@sh.itjust.works 34 points 2 years ago

I'm guessing it's easier to feel that way if your name is Justin.

If it was Justine, you might have issues.

Weird how that works.

[-] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 19 points 2 years ago

Fair enough. Ideally it would be the same for women too, but we're not there as a society yet.

[-] steakmeoutt@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Such an empty response. Do you know that women have to do things on dates out of fear of being killed? Literally they have a rational fear of being killed by their male dates and it’s a commonly known and accepted fear that many women relate.

Society moving forward is a nice idea, women feeling safe is much better one and attitudes like yours are part of the reason women generally do not feel safe. Deepfakes are not freeing at all.

[-] zzx@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago
[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

I think there's a big difference between creating them and spreading them, and putting punishments on spreading nudes against someone's will, real or fake is a better 3rd option. The free speech implications of banning software that's capable of creating them is too broad and fuzzy, but I think that putting harsh penalties on spreading them on the grounds of harassment would be clear cut and effective. I didn't see a big difference in between spreading revenge porn and deep fakes and we already have laws against spreading revenge porn.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

We gotta ban photo editing software too. Shit, we gotta ban computers entirely. Shit, now we have to ban electricity.

[-] Ryzen11v@ani.social 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm so tired of this "Don't blame the tool" bs argument used to divert responsibility.

Blame the fucking tool and restrict it.

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

Why not blame the spread? You can't ban the tool, it's easily accessible software and that only requires easily accessible consumer hardware, and you can even semi easily train your own models using easily accessible porn on the Internet, so if you want to ban it outright, you'd need to ban the general purpose tool, all porn, and the knowledge to train image generation models. If you mean ban the online apps that sell the service on the cloud, I can get behind that, it would increase the bar to create them a little, but that is far from a solution.

But, we already have laws against revenge porn and Internet harassment. I think the better and more feasible approach that doesn't have far reaching free speech implications would be to simply put heavy penalties on spreading nudes images of people against their will, whether those images are real or fake. It's harassment as revenge porn, and I didn't see how it's different if it's a realistic fake. If there is major punishment for spreading these images then I think that will take care of discouraging the spread of the images for the vast majority of people.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

Social media is a tool used to spread misinformation. Should social media be banned?

[-] Ryzen11v@ani.social 19 points 2 years ago
[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 12 points 2 years ago

So delete your account.

[-] nexusband@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Social media as a business model? Yes, absolutely.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

Is open source AI image generation a business model?

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

The companies that host and sell an online image to nude service using a tuned version of that tool specifically designed to convert images into nudes are definitely a business model.

I agree it's impractical and opens dangerous free speech problems to try and ban or regulate the general purpose software, but, I don't have a problem with regulating for profit online image generation services that have been advertising the ability to turn images into nudes and have even been advertising their service on non porn sites. Regulating those will at least raise the bar a bit and ensure that there's isn't a for profit motive where capitalism will encourage it happening even more.

We already have revenge porn laws that outlaw the spread of real nudes against someone's will, I don't see why the spread of fakes shouldn't be outlaws similarly.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

And I think if those companies can be identified as making the offending image, they should be help liable. IMO, you shouldn’t be able to use a photo without the permission of the person.

[-] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Blame the fucking tool and restrict it.

I mean. It's worked so well with you so far, why not?

[-] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago
[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

Pencils are the tool of Satan!!!

[-] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

With ai and digital art... What is real? What is a person? What is a cartoon or a similar but not same likeness? In some cases what even is nudity? How old is an ai image? How can anything then be legal or illegal?

this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
196 points (100.0% liked)

News

36063 readers
2918 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS