Teen girls are being victimized by deepfake nudes. One family is pushing for more protections
A mother and her 14-year-old daughter are advocating for better protections for victims after AI-generated nude images of the teen and other female classmates were circulated at a high school in New Jersey.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, officials are investigating an incident involving a teenage boy who allegedly used artificial intelligence to create and distribute similar images of other students – also teen girls - that attend a high school in suburban Seattle, Washington.
The disturbing cases have put a spotlight yet again on explicit AI-generated material that overwhelmingly harms women and children and is booming online at an unprecedented rate. According to an analysis by independent researcher Genevieve Oh that was shared with The Associated Press, more than 143,000 new deepfake videos were posted online this year, which surpasses every other year combined.
Maybe I'm just naive of how many protections we're actually granted but shouldn't this already fall under CP/CSAM legislation in nearly every country?
Would it? How do they prove the age of an AI generated image?
By.... checking the age of the person depicted in the image?
...who by definition is AI generated and does not, in fact, exist?
What? But they literally do exist, and they're hurting from it. Did you even read the post?
While you're correct, many of these generators are retaining the source image and only generating masked sections, so the person in the image is still themselves with effectively photoshopped nudity, which would still qualify as child pornography. That is an interesting point that you make though
The article is about real children being used as the basis for AI-generated porn. This isn't about entirely fabricated images.
Of course they exist. If the AI generated image "depicts" a person, a victim in this case, that person "by definition" exists.
Your argument evaporates when you consider that all digital images are interpreted and encoded by complex mathematical algorithms. All digital images are "fake" by that definition and therefore the people depicted do not exist. Try explaining that to your 9 year old daughter.
Go to this website and tell me who is depicted in the photo, please?
Are you daft? I assume that the person depicted in the photo at thispersondoesnotexist.com does not exist.
That image was generated by AI.
So do people in images that are purely AI generated exist, or not?
This is so tedious. If you have a point, then make it. Stop asking inane questions.
This question is based on a false premise, as though the technology used to create an image is relevant to what it depicts.
Of course in all cases, for all intents and purposes the depicted person exists. You can argue that a painting is just an arrangement of pigments on canvas and you would be correct, but to everyone else its still a picture of a specific person.
If you use a computer to generate an image that "looks like" a school-mate doing whatever thing, then an argument that the person in the picture does not exist because the image was generated by AI is moot, because for all intent's and purposes it's a "picture of" that school mate doing that thing.
Suppose that instead of generating photos of faces, thispersondoesnotexist.com generated porn. Who would be harmed then?
For the love of everything holy. This is not how grown ups discuss things. Make your point and stop asking dumb questions.
As you well know, no one is directly harmed by the simple act of someone viewing AI generated porn which does not depict a real person.
That said, the law in my jurisdiction does not discern between real or not. If it's an image (even hentai) depicting sexual abuse against a minor then it's CSAM. How do you know if the depicted person is a minor? That's a question for a jury. I'm sure there are arguments against this position, but it's merits are obvious. You don't need to quibble over whether an image depicts a real person or not, if it's CSAM then it's illegal.
Then why did you say that there was no difference realism-wise between an image generated by AI and an image generated by a camera?
Because it's true.
You fucking dunce. You did not read the article. People have been taking real pictures of real children, and using AI to remove their clothes. The real person is still in the image
Just ask ChatGPT to cut them in half and count the rings.
If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it's depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?
You mean the real person being depicted? So this wouldn't apply to fake people?
Which fake people?
If the porn were of non-real people.
You can't ask questions on lemmy - people assume you have lots of subtext that isn't there.
Ship of Thesseus
IDK why this dumb thought experiment makes me so grumpy everyone someone invokes it, but you're going to have to explain how it's relevant here.
How many pieces do you have to change before it's not closely enough related? If every piece is modified, is it the same base image? If it's not the same image, when does it cease to represent the original and must be reassessed? If it's no longer the image of a real person, given the extreme variety in both real and imagined people, how can an AI image ever be illegal? If you morph between an image of a horse and an illegal image, at what exact point does it become illegal? What about a person and an illegal image? What about an ai generated borderline image and an illegal image? At some point, a legal image changes into an illegal image, and that point is nearly impossible to define. Likewise, the transition between a real and imagined person is the same, or the likeness between two similar looking real, but different, or imagined people.
If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it's depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?
I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make?
It's relevant in this case because the age they are today is underage. A picture of them 10 years ago is underage. And a picture of anyone made by AI to deep fake them nude is unethical irregardless of age. But it's especially concerning when the goal is to depict underage girls as nude. The age thing specifically could get a little complicated in certain situations ig, but the intent is obvious most of the time.
I'm obviously not advocating or defending any particular behavior.
Legally speaking, why is what age they are today relevant rather than the age they are depicted as in the picture? Like, imagine we have a picture 20 years from now of someone at age 37. It's legally fine until it's revealed it was generated in 2023 when the person in question was 17? If the exact same picture was generated a year later it's fine again?
Basically, yes.
Is the person under-age at the time the image was generated? and ... Is the image sexual in nature?
If yes, then generating or possessing such an image ought to be a crime.
Won't somebody think of the make believe computer generated cartoon children?!
Someone has to pay... this image is only 2 hours old....TWO HOURS OLD, YOU ANIMALS
In Germany, it would.
Not a lawyer, but 99% sure it's the same here in Canada as well.
Australia too. Hentai showing underage people is illegal here. From my understanding it's all a little grey depending on the state and whether the laws are enforced, but if it's about victimisation the law will be pretty clear.
Absolutely absurd. Criminalizing drawings is the stupidest thing in the world.
This case should already be illegal under harassment or similar laws. There's no reason to make drawings illegal
In germany even a written story about it is illegal. it is considered "textual CSAM" then.
Nah dude, I am perfectly cool with animated depictions of child sexual exploitation being in the same category as regualr child exploitation regardless of the fact that she's actually a 10,000 old midget elf or whatever paper thin explanation they provide not to be considered paedos.
Well that's just absurd and you should rethink your position using logic rather than emotion.
Well that's an emotional response that includes no specifics or appeals to logic.
Lol.
You clearly have no logic so I'm not going to appeal to it. Just a general comment.
I am shocked to my core that you would write off an observation as having no logic. Shocked I tell you!
Not an observation. You're saying you don't care about actual victims, children actually being abused. Real, live victims. That's not worse than someone drawing some pictures you don't like?
Wow, you got me. That's totally what I am saying that you had to fabricate a quote that represents the argument you want to have.
Fabricate a quote? I literally quoted the start of the thread.
It was done by another underage boy, how would the law act in this case?
Yes, underage people can be charged.
https://www.tribtoday.com/news/local-news/2019/01/teen-sexting-is-child-porn/
Edit: Of course this is actual pictures, not generated.
So basically the link you posted has nothing to do with OP LOL