358
‘IRL Fakes:’ Where People Pay for AI-Generated Porn of Normal People
(www.404media.co)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
358 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
77341 readers
1568 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is not new. People have been Photoshopping this kind of thing since before there was Photoshop. Why "AI" being involved matters is beyond me. The result is the same: fake porn/nudes.
And all the hand wringing in the world about it being non consensual will not stop it. The cat has been out of the bag for a long time.
I think we all need to shift to not believing what we see. It is counterintuitive, but also the new normal.
Because now it's faster, can be generated in bulk and requires no skill from the person doing it.
I blame electricity. Before computers, people had to learn to paint to do this. We should go back to living like medieval peasants.
Those were the days...
This, but unironically.
A kid at my high school in the early 90s would use a photocopier and would literally cut and paste yearbook headshots onto porn photos. This could also be done in bulk and doesn't require any skills that a 1st grader doesn't have.
Those are easily disproven. There's no way you think that's the same thing. If you can pull up the source photo and it's a clear match/copy for the fake it's easy to disprove. AI can alter the angle, position, and expression on your face in a believable manor making it a lot harder to link the photo to source material
This was before Google was a thing, much less reverse lookup with Google Images. The point I was making is that this kind of thing happened even before Photoshop. Photoshop made it look even more realistic. AI is the next step. And even the current AI abilities are nothing compared to what they are going to be even 6 months from now. Yes, this is a problem, but it has been a problem for a long time and anyone who has wanted to create fake nudes of someone has had the ability to easily do so for at least a generation now. We might be at the point now where if you want to make sure you don't have fake nudes created of you, then you don't have images of yourself published. However now that everyone has high quality cameras in their pockets, this won't 100% protect you.
But now they are photo realistic
And it's looked as realistic as AI jobs?
As much skill as a 9 year old and a 16 year old can muster?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
Not relevant. Using someone's picture never ever required consent.
This feels entirely non-sequitur, to the point of damaging any point you're trying to make. Whether I paint a nude or the modern Leonardi DaVinci paints a nude our rights (and/or the rights of the model, depending on your perspective on this issue) should be no different, despite the enormous chasm that exists between our artistic skill.
I hate this: "Just accept it women of the world, accept the abuse because it's the new normal" techbro logic so much. It's absolutely hateful towards women.
We have legal and justice systems to deal with this. It is not the new normal for me to be able to make porn of your sister, or mother, or daughter. Absolutely fucking abhorrent.
I don't know why you're being down voted. Sure, it's unfortunately been happening for a while, but we're just supposed to keep quiet about it and let it go?
I'm sorry, putting my face on a naked body that's not mine is one thing, but I really do fear for the people whose likeness gets used in some degrading/depraved porn and it's actually believable because it's AI generated. That is SO much worse/psychologically damaging if they find out about it.
It’s unacceptable.
For reference, here’s how we’re doing with child porn. Platforms with problems include (copying from my comment two months ago):
Because gay porn is a myth I guess...
And so is straight male-focused porn. We men seemingly are not attractive, other than for perfume ads. It's unbelievable gender roles are still so strongly coded in 20204. Women must be pretty, men must buy products where women look pretty in ads. Men don't look pretty and women don't buy products - they clean the house and care for the kids.
I'm aware of how much I'm extrapolating, but a lot of this is the subtext under "they'll make porn of your sisters and daughters" but leaving out of the thought train your good looking brother/son, when that'd be just as hurtful for them and yourself.
Sorry if I didn't position this about men. They are the most important thing to discuss and will be the most impacted here, obviously. We must center men on this subject too.
It's not normal but neither is new: you already could cut and glue your cousin's photo on a Playboy girl, or Photoshop the hot neighbour on Stallone's muscle body. Today is just easier.
I don't care if it's not new, no one cares about how new it is.
How do you propose to deal with someone doing this on their computer, not posting them online, for their "enjoyment"? Mass global surveillance of all existing devices?
It's not a matter of willingly accepting it; it's a matter of looking at what can be done and what can not. Publishing fake porn, defaming people, and other similar actions are already (I hope… I am not a lawyer) illegal. Asking for the technology that exists, is available, will continue to grow, and can be used in a private setting with no witness to somehow "stop" because of a law is at best wishful thinking.
There's nothing to be done, nor should be done, for anything someone individually creates, for their own individual use, never to see the light of day. Anything else is about one step removed from thought policing - afterall what's the difference between a personally created, private image and the thoughts on your brain?
The other side of that is, we have to have protection for people who this has or will be used against. Strict laws regarding posting or sharing material. Easy and fast removal of abusive material. Actual enforcement. I know we have these things in place already, but they need to be stronger and more robust. The one absolute truth with generative AI, versus Photoshop etc is that it's significantly faster and easier, thus there will likely be an uptick in this kind of material, thus the need for re-examining current laws.
typical morning for me.
I suck at Photoshop and Ive tried many times to get good at it over the years. I was able to train a local stable diffusion model on my and my family's faces and create numerous images of us in all kinds of situations in 2 nights of work. You can get a snap of someone and have nudes of them tomorrow for super cheap.
I agree there is nothing to be done, but it's painfully obvious to me that the scale and ease of it that makes it much more concerning.
Also the potential for automation/mass-production. Photoshop work still requires a person to sit down to do the actual photoshop. You can try to script things out, but it's hardly an easy affair.
By comparison, generative models are much more hands-free. Once you get the basics set up, you can just have it go, and churn things at rates well surpassing what a single human could reasonably do (if you have the computing power for it).
This kind of attitude toward non-consensual actions is what perpetuates them. Fuck that shit.
The same reason AR15 rifles are different than muskets
Scale.
At the same time, that does introduce an additional layer of work. Most people aren't going to do that just for the extra work that it would involve, in much the same way that people today won't track down an image back down to the original source, but usually just go by the one that they saw.
Especially for people who aren't so cryptographically or technologically inclined that they know what a hash is, where to find one, and how to compare it (without just opening them both and checking personally).
But I saw it on tee-vee!
The irony of parroting this mindless and empty talking point is probably lost on you.
God, do I really have to start putting the /jk or /s back, for those who don't get it like you??
Upgraded to "definitely."
Okay, okay, you won. Happy now? Now go.
Ok thanks
This is something I can't quite get through to my wife. She does not like that I dismiss things to some degree when it does not makes sense. We get into these convos where Im like I have serious doubts about this and she is like. Are you saying it did not happen and im like. no. It may have happened but not in quite the way they say or its being portrayed in a certain manner. Im still going to take video and photos for now as being likely true but I generally want to see it from independent sources. like different folks with their phones along with cctv of some kind and such.
Ok so pay the dude $10 to put your wife's head on someone agreeing with you. Problem solved.
I didn't expect to get a laugh out of reading this discussion, thanks.
lol. there you go. hey you cheated on me. its in this news article right here.
The AI hysteria is real, and clickbait is money.