You can't stop them being made, they're just the same deepfakes people have been making before. It's important to note that they're not photos of people, they're guesses made by a algorithm.
While you're completely right, that's hardly a consolation for those affected. The damage is done, even if it's not actually real, because it will be convincing enough for at least some.
While I understand your point, what consolation can be provided?
I think the people who made the pictures have to suffer consequences. Otherwise this sends the message as if it was just fair game to behave that way.
Saying man that sucks doe, and nothing else really
The faces are not generated, and that is where the damage comes. It targets the girls for humiliation by implying that they allowed the nudes to be taken of them. Depending upon the location and circumstances, this could get the girls murdered. Think of "honor killings" by fundamentalists. It makes them targets for further sexual abuse, too.
Anyone distributing the photos are at fault, as well as the people who made the photos.
The problem goes deeper, though. We can never trust a photo as proof of anything, again. Let that sink in, what it means to society.
To push back your attempt to minimalise what's going on here ...
Yes, they're not actually photos of the girls. But, nor is a photo of a naked person actually the same as that person standing in front of you naked.
If being seen naked is unwanted and embarrassing etc, why should a photo of you naked be embarrassing, and, to make my point, what difference would it make if the photo is more or less realistic? An actual photo can be processed or taken under certain lighting or with a certain lens or have been taken some time in the past ... all factors that lessen how close it is to the current naked appearance of the subject. How unrealistic can a photo be before it's no longer embarrassing?
Psychologically, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the embarrassment of a naked image is that someone else now has a relatively concrete image in their minds of what the subject looks like naked. It is a way of being seen naked by proxy. A drawn or painted image could probably have the same effect.
There's probably some range of realism within which there's an embarrassing effect, and I'd bet AI is very capable of getting in that range pretty easily these days.
While the technology is out there now ... it doesn't mean that our behaviours with it are automatically acceptable. Society adapts to the uses and abuses new technology has and it seems pretty obvious that we're yet to culturally curb the abuses of this technology.
Tldr
Exactly, the technology is out there and will not cease to exist. Maybe we'll digitally sign our photos in the future so that deepfakes can be sorted out by that.
Omg it's NFTs time to shine!!!!
/S
Will everyone be expected to have some kind of official PGP key?
You can't stop them being made, they're just the same deepfakes people have been making before. It's important to note that they're not photos of people, they're guesses made by a algorithm.
While you're completely right, that's hardly a consolation for those affected. The damage is done, even if it's not actually real, because it will be convincing enough for at least some.
While I understand your point, what consolation can be provided?
I think the people who made the pictures have to suffer consequences. Otherwise this sends the message as if it was just fair game to behave that way.
Saying man that sucks doe, and nothing else really
The EU is assessing the state of deepfakes and is planning to create a legal framework to keep it under control through a "combination of measures will likely be necessary to limit the risks of deepfakes, while harnessing their potential."
The faces are not generated, and that is where the damage comes. It targets the girls for humiliation by implying that they allowed the nudes to be taken of them. Depending upon the location and circumstances, this could get the girls murdered. Think of "honor killings" by fundamentalists. It makes them targets for further sexual abuse, too. Anyone distributing the photos are at fault, as well as the people who made the photos.
The problem goes deeper, though. We can never trust a photo as proof of anything, again. Let that sink in, what it means to society.
To push back your attempt to minimalise what's going on here ...
Yes, they're not actually photos of the girls. But, nor is a photo of a naked person actually the same as that person standing in front of you naked.
If being seen naked is unwanted and embarrassing etc, why should a photo of you naked be embarrassing, and, to make my point, what difference would it make if the photo is more or less realistic? An actual photo can be processed or taken under certain lighting or with a certain lens or have been taken some time in the past ... all factors that lessen how close it is to the current naked appearance of the subject. How unrealistic can a photo be before it's no longer embarrassing?
Psychologically, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the embarrassment of a naked image is that someone else now has a relatively concrete image in their minds of what the subject looks like naked. It is a way of being seen naked by proxy. A drawn or painted image could probably have the same effect.
There's probably some range of realism within which there's an embarrassing effect, and I'd bet AI is very capable of getting in that range pretty easily these days.
While the technology is out there now ... it doesn't mean that our behaviours with it are automatically acceptable. Society adapts to the uses and abuses new technology has and it seems pretty obvious that we're yet to culturally curb the abuses of this technology.
Tldr
Exactly, the technology is out there and will not cease to exist. Maybe we'll digitally sign our photos in the future so that deepfakes can be sorted out by that.
Omg it's NFTs time to shine!!!!
/S
Will everyone be expected to have some kind of official PGP key?