Unanimously
While I think 'deepfake porn is bad' is pretty uncontroversial, I'm surprised not one senator decided to vote nay just to spite AOC.
Because the headline is misleading. The bill was written by a bipartisan group of democrats and republicans, including AOC.
It’s weird to call it AOC’s bill in this context.
It would not be nearly the first time that Republicans shot down their own bill for no reason other than some Democrats said it was a good bill.
We all know why.
Clue in the one guy that doesn't please?
i'm guessing because she's the only senator with a notable quantity of deepfake porn made of her.
I'm guessing "defending nonconsensual porn" seemed like something you wouldn't want on your record and in attack ads even for the troglodytes.
Once it gets to a vote, yes. The way to kill these things is to bury it in procedure and pretend you're just doing due diligence. Still pretty amazing that it got this far.
These guys are tripping over each other to gargle the orange balls of a bitch who openly professes lust for his daughter.
I'm surprised from the other side, there's always people defending deepfake porn on Lemmy
Things have already been moving towards nobody models. I think this will eventually have the consequence of nobodies becoming the new somebodies as this will result in a lot of very well developed nobodies and move the community into furthering their development instead of the deepfake stuff. You'll eventually be watching Hollywood quality feature films full of nobodies. There is some malicious potential with deep fakes, but the vast majority are simply people learning the tools. This will alter that learning target and the memes.
You’ll eventually be watching Hollywood quality feature films full of nobodies.
With the content on modern streaming services, I've been doing this for a while already.
Oh damn, you should try switching to Dropout.
That's where the money is, so yes that's where the majority of work is. But I do think one of the drivers of this is to help protect more local instances; to create consequences for things like fake revenge porn or distributing deepfakes of classmates/teachers in your school, etc.
Am I the only one that still gets uncomfortable every time the government tries to regulate advanced technology?
—~~It's not a Libertarian thing to me as much as it's a~~ 'politicians don't understand technology thing.'
Arguing against laws that prohibit sexual exploitation with high tech tools, because of the nature of technology, would be like arguing against laws that prohibit rape because of the nature of human sexuality.
The "it still is going to happen" argument doesn't matter, because the point of the law isn't to eliminate something 100%, it is to create consequences for those who continue to do what the law prohibits.
It's not some slippery slope either, it is extremely easy not to make involuntary pornography of other people.
The worrying aspect of these laws are always that they focus too much on the method. This law claims to be about preventing a particular new technology, but then goes on to apply to all software.
And frankly if you need a clause about how someone is making fake pornography of someone then something is off. Something shouldn't be illegal simply because it is easy.
Deepfakes shouldn't be any more or less illegal than photos made of a doppelgänger or an extremely photorealistic painting (and does photorealism even matter? To the victims, I mean.). A good law should explain why those actions are illegal and when and not just restrict itself to applying solely to 'technology' and say oh if it only restricts technology then we should be all right.
I am not ok with making art a crime.
Do not give away basic human rights because of emotional appeals.
If sexual blackmail is the problem, prosecute sexual blackmail.
AOC is young. I think she's a politician that does understand the technology and if she needs to she can educate the other boomers on the bill.
Paywall, does it have any shady stuff slipped in like KOSA, SOPA, and the other “protect the children” laws usually have?
You can read the bill directly from here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3696/text
It's actually reasonably short. I'm not seeing anything that doesn't appear directly related to derpfakes
Nice thanks seems straightforward
How close does the deep fake need to be to the original? What we saw with DALLE2 was that each person whose face was restricted made a hole in the latent space of all faces. After enough celebrities faces were restricted, there were so many latent space holes that the algorithm couldn't make faces at all since every producable face was a certain "distance" away from a restriction.
Sure, you can make lora training on unconsenting people illegal and also make particular prompts illegal, but there is enough raw data and vague prompts to mold a generation into something that looks like it was done the illegal way without breaking either of those two restrictions.
The text of the bill specifies
when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.
So it's not trying to chase specific implementations but using a "reasonable person" test (which I would argue is a good thing)
There are billions of people. Find the right one, and a "reasonable person" could not tell the difference.
Image a law that said you cannot name your baby a name if someone else's name starts with the same letter. After 26 names, all future names would be illegal. The law essentially would make naming babies illegal.
The "alphabet" in this case is the distict visual depiction of all people. As long as the visual innumeration of "reasonable people" is small enough, it essentially makes any generation illegal. Conversely, if "reasonable people" granulated fine enough, it makes avoiding prosecution trivial by adding minor conflicting details.
You should maybe do a little more reading on the word "reasonable."
So if I make AI porn of a celebrity but give her a face tattoo saying AI generated then its legal?
Doubt it, a reasonable person will generally be able to tell if you're obviously taking the piss with the law. Feel free to try it and let us know how you get on though.
But that is not what the bill says, the reasonable person is not evaluating my intent, it's evaluating if the video is "indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual" which in this case it would be very distinguishable since the individual does not have said face tattoo.
Sure, you can make lora training on unconsenting people illegal
Nobody said this needs to be illegal. Scrape up my pictures and render me jumping the grand canyon on a motorcycle or something. I don't care.
But spread around fake nudes and then I am happy we have a law I can use against you.
The bill: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/s3696/BILLS-118s3696es.xml
As always, I read the bill expecting to be deeply disappointed; but was pleasantly surprised with this one. It's not going to solve the issue, but I don't really know of anything they can do to solve it. My guess is this will mostly be effective at going after large scale abuses (such as websites dedicated to deepfake porn, or general purpose deepfake sites with no safeguards in place).
My first impressions on specific parts of the bill:
The bill is written as an amendment to the 2022 appropriations act. This isn't that strange, but I haven't actually cross-references that, so might be misunderstanding some subtlety.
The definition of digital forgery is broad in terms of the means. Basically anything done on a computer counts, not just AI. In contrast, it is narrow in the result, requiring that:
when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.
There is a lot of objectionable material that is not covered by this. Personally, I would like to see a broader test, but can't think of any that I would be comfortable with
The depiction also needs to be relevant to interstate or foreign commerce. There hands are tied by the constitution on this one. Unless Wickard v Fillburn us overturned though, me producing a deepfake for personal use reduces my interstate porn consumption, so it qualifies. By explicitly incorporating the constitutional test, the law will survive any change made to what qualifies as interstate commerce.
The mens rea required is "person who knows or recklessly disregards that the identifiable individual has not consented to such disclosure" No complaints on this standard.
This is grounds for civil suits only; nothing criminal. Makes sense, as criminal would normally be a state issue and, as mentioned earlier, this seems mostly targeted at large scale operations, which can be prevented with enough civil litigation.
Max damage is:
Plaintifs can use a pseudonym, and all personally identifiable information is to be redacted or filed under seal. Intimate images turned over in discovery remains in the custody of the court
10 year statute of limitations. Starting at when the plaintif could reasonably have learned about the images, or turns 18.
States remain free to create their own laws that are "at least as protective of the rights of a victim".
My guess is the "at least as protective" portion is there because a state suite would prevent a federal suit under this law, as there is an explicit bar on duplicative recovery, but I have not dug into the referenced law to see what that covers.
Ok, fist of all, politicians need to stop it with these acronyms for every law they want to pass. It’s getting ridiculous. Just give the damned law a regular-ass name. It doesn’t have to be all special and catchy-sounding damn.
Second, I’m really surprised to hear of anything passing the senate unanimously, other than a bill expressing the love of silly acronyms. And weak campaign finance laws.
Anyway, I’m glad that at least something is being done to address this, but I just know someone in the House is gonna fuck this up.
I looked it up: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3696/all-actions
It passed by unanimous voice vote. That is, the president of the Senate (pro tempore, usually Patty Murray) asked for all in favor, and at least one person said "yea" and when asked for all opposed, nobody said "nay". There wasn't a roll call vote, so we don't know how many people (or who) actually voted for it.
Edit: it was probably on C-Span, so you can probably find a recording and get an idea of how many people were there, and how many yeas you hear, if you're so inclined.
To improve rights to relief for individuals affected by non-consensual activities involving intimate digital forgeries, and for other purposes.
Congress finds that:
(1) Digital forgeries, often called deepfakes, are synthetic images and videos that look realistic. The technology to create digital forgeries is now ubiquitous and easy to use. Hundreds of apps are available that can quickly generate digital forgeries without the need for any technical expertise.
(2) Digital forgeries can be wholly fictitious but can also manipulate images of real people to depict sexually intimate conduct that did not occur. For example, some digital forgeries will paste the face of an individual onto the body of a real or fictitious individual who is nude or who is engaging in sexual activity. Another example is a photograph of an individual that is manipulated to digitally remove the clothing of the individual so that the person appears to be nude.
“(3) DIGITAL FORGERY.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.
Ohh boy I bet the users in the unstable community are shaking right now
Is this just "AI porn bill" because that's the most common way of doing it these days? I should expect the product is what's being sanctioned and not the method.
Not just AI…
…any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means….
This probably also covers using MS Paint.
Back to my hand drawn stick figure celebrity porn, I suppose.
As long as it can't be mistaken for the actual person it moves the stigma from them doing weird things to the artist doing weird things
Not convinced on this one
It seems like the bill is being pitched as protecting women who have fake nudes passed around their school but the text of the bill seems more aimed at the Taylor swift case.
1 The bill only applies where there is an “intent to distribute”
2 The bill talks about damages being calculated based on the profit of the defendant
The bill also states that you can’t label the image as AI generated or rely on the context of publication to avoid running afoul of this law. That seems at odds with the 1st amendment.
The bill only applies where there is an “intent to distribute”
That's a predicate for any law bound to the Commerce Clause. You need to demonstrate the regulation is being applied to interstate traffic. Anything else would be limited to state/municipal regulations.
The bill talks about damages being calculated based on the profit of the defendant
That's arguably a better rule than the more traditional flat-fee penalties, as it curbs the impulse to treat violations as cost-of-business. A firm that makes $1B/year isn't going to blink at a handful of $1000 judgements.
The bill also states that you can’t label the image as AI generated or rely on the context of publication to avoid running afoul of this law.
A revenge-porn law that can be evaded by asserting "This isn't Taylor Swift, its Tay Swiff and any resemblance of an existing celebrity is purely coincidental" would be toothless. We already apply these rules for traditional animated assets. You'd be liable for producing an animated short staring "Definitely Not Mickey Mouse" under the same reasoning.
This doesn't prevent you from creating a unique art asset. And certainly there's a superabundance of original pornographic art models and porn models generated with the consent of the living model. The hitch here is obvious, though. You're presumed to own your own likeness.
My biggest complaint is that it only seems to apply to pornography. And I suspect we'll see people challenge the application of the law by producing "parody" porn or "news commentary" porn. What the SCOTUS does with that remains to be seen.
Question from an outsider:
Do all bills in the states have to have a fancy acronym?
It looks like the senate is the first step, is that right? Next is the house? It's the opposite where I am.
Not all bills do, but the majority of big ones you hear about do. It's simply a marketing thing
And correct, it'll move to the House, where if it passes it will move to the president's desk. Considering it was unanimous in the Senate, I can't see it having any issues in the House.
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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
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.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
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.