Instagram Advertises Nonconsensual AI Nude Apps
Instagram is profiting from several ads that invite people to create nonconsensual nude images with AI image generation apps, once again showing that some of the most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet, but are actively promoted to users by social media companies unable or unwilling to enforce their policies about who can buy ads on their platforms.
While parent company Meta’s Ad Library, which archives ads on its platforms, who paid for them, and where and when they were posted, shows that the company has taken down several of these ads previously, many ads that explicitly invited users to create nudes and some ad buyers were up until I reached out to Meta for comment. Some of these ads were for the best known nonconsensual “undress” or “nudify” services on the internet.
Seen similar stuff on TikTok.
That's the big problem with ad marketplaces and automation, the ads are rarely vetted by a human, you can just give them money, upload your ad and they'll happily display it. They rely entirely on users to report them which most people don't do because they're ads and they wont take it down unless it's really bad.
It's especially bad on reels/shorts for pretty much all platforms. Tons of financial scams looking to steal personal info or worse. And I had one on a Facebook reel that was for boner pills that was legit a minute long ad of hardcore porn. Not just nudity but straight up uncensored fucking.
The user reports are reviewed by the same model that screened the ad up-front so it does jack shit
Actually, a good 99% of my reports end up in the video being taken down. Whether it's because of mass reports or whether they actually review it is unclear.
What's weird is the algorithm still seems to register that as engagement, so lately I've been reporting 20+ videos a day because it keeps showing them to me on my FYP. It's wild.
That's a clever way of getting people to work for them as moderators.
It’s all so incredibly gross. Using “AI” to undress someone you know is extremely fucked up. Please don’t do that.
I'm going to undress Nobody. And give them sexy tentacles.
Behold my meaty, majestic tentacles. This better not awaken anything in me...
Same vein as "you should not mentally undress the girl you fancy". It's just a support for that. Not that i have used it.
Don't just upload someone else's image without consent, though. That's even illegal in most of europe.
Why you should not mentally undress the girl you fancy (or not, what difference does it make?)? Where is the harm of it?
there is none, that's their point
Would it be any different if you learn how to sketch or photoshop and do it yourself?
You say that as if photoshopping someone naked isnt fucking creepy as well.
Creepy, maybe, but tons of people have done it. As long as they don't share it, no harm is done.
I dont think that many have dude. Like sure, if you're talking total number and not percentage, but this planet has so many people you could also claim that tons of people are pedophiles too
Lol you'd be surprised...isn't this one of those things people would do in private but never admit in public (because of people likr you getting all touchy and creeped out by it)?
You say this like we SHOULDN'T be creeped out that you are digitally undressing someone without their permission
You can feel whatever you want.
Okie, I feel your a creep that shouldn't be allowed within 100m of a school
Everyone has imagined someone naked at some point. Do you feel the same? How do you feel about yourself?
Creepy to you, sure. But let me add this:
Should it be illegal? No, and good luck enforcing that.
You're at least right on the enforcement part, but I dont think the illegality of it should be as hard of a no as you think it is
This is also fucking creepy. Don't do this.
I am not saying anyone should do it and don't need some internet stranger to police me thankyouverymuch.
Yes, because the AI (if not local) will probably store the images on their Servers
good point
This is the only good answer.
Yet another example of multi billion dollar companies that don't curate their content because it's too hard and expensive. Well too bad maybe you only profit 46 billion instead of 55 billion. Boo hoo.
It's not that it's too expensive, it's that they don't care. They won't do the right thing until and unless they are forced to, or it affects their bottom line.
Wild that since the rise of the internet it's like they decided advertising laws don't apply anymore.
But Copyright though, it absolutely does, always and everywhere.
An economic entity cannot care, I don't understand how people expect them to. They are not human
Economic Entities aren't robots, they're collections of people engaged in the act of production, marketing, and distribution. If this ad/product exists, its because people made it exist deliberately.
No they are slaves to the entity.
They can be replaced
Everyone from top to bottom can be replaced
And will be unless they obey the machine's will
It's crazy talk to deny this fact because it feels wrong
It's just the truth and yeah, it's wrong
Once you enter the actual business sector and find out how much information is siloed or sequestered in the hands of a few power users, I think you're going to be disappointed to discover this has never been true.
More than one business has failed because a key member of the team left, got an ill-conceived promotion, or died.
Your example is 9 billion difference. This would not cost 9 billion. It wouldn't even cost 1 billion.
Yeah realistically you're talking about a team of 10 to 30 people whose entire job is to give the final thumbs up or thumbs down to an ad.
You're talking one to three million dollars a year, maybe throw an extra million on for the VP.
Chump change, they just don't want to pay it cuz nobody's forcing them to
It would take more than 10-30 to run a content review department for any of the major social media firms, but your point still stands that it wouldn’t be a billion annually. A few 10s of millions between wages/benefits/equipment/software all combined annually
Shouldn't AI be good at detecting and flagging ads like these?
"Shouldn't AI be good" nah.
Which do you think Meta is doing?
I can't possibly imagine this quality of clickbait is bringing in $9B annually.
Maybe I'm wrong. But this feels like the sort of thing a business does when its trying to juice the same lemon for the fourth or fifth time.
It's not that the clickbait is bringing in $9B, it's that it would cost $9B to moderate it.
Intersting how we can "undress any girl" but I have not seen a tool to "undress any boy" yet. 😐
I don't know what it says about people developing those tools. (I know, in fact)
Make one :P
Then I suspect you'll find the answer is money. The ones for women simply just make more money.
This
I've seen a tool like that. Everyone was a bodybuilder and Hung like a horse.
I'm going to guess all the ones of women have bolt on tiddies and no pubic hair.
Well of course. Sagging breasts are gross /s
Thats what we all look like.
Don't check though
Gotta wonder where they get their horse dick training images from
notices ur instance
Can’t judge though, I have a Chance myself lawl
pff no exotic-erotics?
Not yet! Nothing really tickled my fancy from there that I haven’t already got similar from BD. Haven’t looked in a while, though!
> yiffit.net
> horse dick joke
oh lawd
pffff
as if furries are the only ones obsessed with horse dicks
Where does Bad Dragon get them from?
Be the change you wish to see in the world
\s
You probably don't need them. You can get these photos without even trying. Is a bit of a problem really.
You probably can with the same inpainting stable diffusion tools, it's just not as heavily advertised.
Probably because the demand is not big or visible enough to make the development worth it, yet.
You don't need to make fake nudes of guys - you can just ask. Hell, they'll probably send you one even without asking.
In general women aren't interested in that anyway and gay guys don't need it because, again, you can just ask.
This is simultaneously a gross generalization and strangely accurate and I hate you for it
What it says is that there isn't any demand for seeing boys naked. We simply look worse because we fucked up evolution.
It remains fascinating to me how these apps are being responded to in society. I'd assume part of the point of seeing someone naked is to know what their bits look like, while these just extrapolate with averages (and likely, averages of glamor models). So we still dont know what these people actually look like naked.
And yet, people are still scorned and offended as if they were.
Technology is breaking our society, albeit in place where our culture was vulnerable to being broken.
I think you are missing the plot here... If a naked pic of yourself, your mother, your wife, your daughter is circulating around the campus, work or just online... Are you really going to be like "lol my nipples are lighter and they don't know" ??
You may not get that job, promotion, entry into program, etc. The harm done by naked pics in public would just as real weather the representation is accurate or not ... And that's not even starting to talk about the violation of privacy and overall creepiness of whatever people will do with that pic of your daughter out there
I believe their point is that an employer logically shouldn't care if some third party fabricates an image resembling you. We still have an issue with latent puritanism, and this needs to be addressed as we face the reality of more and more convincing fakes of images, audio, and video.
I agree... however, we live in the world we live in, where employers do discriminate as much as they can before getting in trouble with the law
I think the only thing we can do is to help out by calling this out. AI fakes are just advanced gossip, and people need to realize that.
But it doesn't. Nobody who is harassed or has their prospects undermined because of AI fakes is helped by repeating that. Especially because as the technology advances the only way to verify its legitimacy will be to compare it with real intimate pictures, which the person cannot show without being exposed to the exact same treatment.
It also doesn't help that gossip can do all that harm as well so the point is moot.
Trying to point out that this is illogical and that nudes shouldn't even be such a big deal is an uphill battle against human emotional, social and cultural tendencies. It would take much more than some offhand comments to affect it at all, and I wouldn't count on that shift happening before the harms of AI fakes spread.
The ubiquity of AI fakes will necessitate a cultural shift. Honestly, the world is going to be a nightmare of misinformation soon and nudes may very well be the least of our worries.
What other options do we have? An ironclad verification system for any fabricated content? Wildly harsh penalties for all caught creating it? The ship has sailed - we won't be able to prevent it from happening.
I'd argue that overexposure will make people quickly become accustomed/nonplussed at information we don't believe to be true and verify with the source. Look at how we treat other fabricated content - if I showed you a screencap of the Pope saying "Fuck" you'd want to verify with a source directly.
Does it seem to you that people are becoming more likely to verify sources?
Nevermind, like I just said before, how exactly do you verify fake porn with the source? Who is going to be volunteering their intimate pictures as reference? Or, do you really think all that it takes to avoid all issues is for the victim to say "that's fake, it's not me"?
Frankly, that sounds like pure wishful thinking to me.
In most cases, the answer should really be "It's none of my business", but yes, it'd involve asking the person whether they're authentic if you needed to verify for some reason.
But yes it really is wishful thinking, because it's honestly about to be a shitshow. People are going to start getting credibly framed for things like child porn.
This is a transitional period issue. In a couple of years you can just say AI made it even if it's a real picture and everyone will believe you. Fake nudes are in no way a new thing anyway. I used to make dozens of these by request back in my edgy 4chan times 15 years ago.
Dead internet.
It also means in a few years, any terrible thing someone does will just be excused as a "deep fake" if you have the resources and any terrible thing someone wants to pin on you with be cooked up in seconds. People wont just blanket believe or disbelieve any possible deep fake. They'll cherry pick what to believe based on their preexisting world view and how confident the story telling comes across.
As far as your old edits go, if they're anything like the ones I saw, they were terrible and not believable at all.
I'm still on the google prompt bandwagon of typing this query:
stuff i am searching for before:2023.. or ideally, even before COVID19, if you want more valuable, less tainted results. It's only going to get worse from here, 2024 is the year of saturation with garbage data on the web (yes I know it was already bad before, but now AI is pumping this shit out at an industrial scale.)People do that now, even without the excuses of ai deepfakes. They simply ignore the stuff that doesn’t fit their worldview, only focusing on what does.
Ai stuff may make that easier, but it certainly won’t be some new problem.
Sure, but the question of whether they harm the victim is still real... if your prospective employer finds tons of pics of you with nazi flags, guns and drugs... they may just "play it safe" and pass on you... no matter how much you claim (or even the employer might think) they are fakes
"Fools! Everybody at my school is laughing at me for having a 2-incher, but little do they know it actually curves to the LEFT!"
Lol
Mine curves to the left.
On the other end, I welcome the widespread creation of these of EVERYONE, so that it becomes impossible for them to be believable. No one should be refused from a job/promotion because of the existence of a real one IMO and this will give plausible deniability.
People are refused for jobs/promotions on the most arbitrary basis, often against existing laws but they are impossible to enforce.
Even if it is normalized, there is always the escalation factor.. sure, nobody won't hire Anita because of her nudes out there, everyone has them and they are probably fake right?... but Perdita? hmmm I don't want my law firm associated in any way with her pics of tentacle porn, that's just too much!
Making sure we are all in the gutter is not really a good way to deal with this issue... specially since it will, once again, impact women 100x more than it will affect men
This is a consideration that a lot of people are glossing over. Schlubby dudes might not even be affected to it at all. It's not going to be widespread for everyone.
How should we deal with this issue then? I'm not sure what can be done about it.
That's a good question... I'm not an expert in this area but I do think it should be criminalized to a certain extent (even if it's hard to enforce)
Probably legislation should out some onus on the makers of these tools as well
Post your clothed full body pic
Yeah, let's just sexually violate everyone. /s
Who the hell is upvoting this awful take? Please understand that it would never be equitable. If this became reality, it would be women and girls that were exploited the most viciously.
I guess if you don't give a shit about people, especially women and girls, feeling safe in public at all, you would say something like this...
It's already possible. Do you want to make it punishable by jail time? How do you prove some anon on 4chan that posts nudes of someone else actually deepfaked it?
I don't see how this can otherwise be contained.
Yes, sex crimes deserve harsh punishments.
It's either deepfaked, or revenge porn. Whichever charge sticks. If 4chan refuses to unmask anons posting illegal content, throw the book at 4chan. Way overdue anyway.
See previous two answers.
Okay if you want to make everything punishable by law then we simply fundamentally disagree.
Okay if you want to make everything punishable by law then we simply fundamentally disagree.
Something like this could be career ending for me. Because of the way people react. “Oh did you see Mrs. Bee on the internet?” Would have to change my name and move three towns over or something. That’s not even considering the emotional damage of having people download you. Knowledge that “you” are dehumanized in this way. It almost takes the concept of consent and throws it completely out the window. We all know people have lewd thoughts from time to time, but I think having a metric on that…it would be so twisted for the self-image of the victim. A marketplace for intrusive thoughts where anyone can be commodified. Not even celebrities, just average individuals trying to mind their own business.
Exactly. I’m not even shy, my boobs have been out plenty and I’ve sent nudes all that. Hell I met my wife with my tits out. But there’s a wild difference between pictures I made and released of my own will in certain contexts and situations vs pictures attempting to approximate my naked body generated without my knowledge or permission because someone had a whim.
I think this is why it's going to be interesting to see how we navigate this as a society. So far, we've done horribly. It's been over a century now that we've acknowledged sexual harassment in the workplace is a problem that harms workers (and reduces productivity) and yet it remains an issue today (only now we know the human resources department will protect the corporate image and upper management by trying to silence the victims).
What deepfakes and generative AI does is make it easy for a campaign staffer, or an ambitious corporate later climber with a buddy with knowhow, or even a determined grade-school student to create convincing media and publish it on the internet. As I note in the other response, if a teen's sexts get reported to law enforcement, they'll gladly turn it into a CSA production and distribution issue and charge the teens themselves with serious felonies with long prison sentences. Now imagine if some kid wanted to make a rival disappear. Heck, imagine the smart kid wanting to exact revenge on a social media bully, now equipped with the power of generative AI.
The thing is, the tech is out of the bag, and as with princes in the mid-east looking at cloned sheep (with deteriorating genetic defects) looking to create a clone of himself as an heir, humankind will use tech in the worst, most heinous possible ways until we find cause to cease doing so. (And no, judicial punishment doesn't stop anyone). So this is going to change society, whether we decide collectively that sexuality (even kinky sexuality) is not grounds to shame and scorn someone, or that we use media scandals the way Italian monastics and Russian oligarchs use poisons, and scandalize each other like it's the shootout at O.K. Corral.
Thanks, I liked this reply. There is a lot of nuance here.
I think you might be overreacting, and if you're not, then it says much more about the society we are currently living in than this particular problem.
I'm not promoting AI fakes, just to be clear. That said, AI is just making fakes easier. If you were a teacher (for example) and you're so concerned that a student of yours could create this image that would cause you to pick up and move your life, I'm sad to say they can already do this and they've been able to for the last 10 years.
I'm not saying it's good that a fake, or an unsubstantiated rumor of an affair, etc can have such big impacts on our life, but it is troubling that someone like yourself can fear for their livelihood over something so easy for anyone to produce. Are we so fragile? Should we not worry more about why our society is so prudish and ostracizing to basic human sexuality?
None of that is relevant. The issue being discussed here isn't one of whether or not it's currently possible to create fake nudes.
The original post being replied to indicated that, since AI, an artist, a photoshopper, whatever, is just creating an imaginary set of genitalia, and they have no ability to know if it's accurate or not, there is no damage being done. That's what people are arguing about.
The society we are living in can be handling things incorrectly but it can absolutely have real-world damaging effects. As a collective we should worry about our society, but individuals absolutely are and should be justified in worrying about their lives being damaged by this.
Wtf are you even talking about? People should have the right to control if they are "approximated" as nude. You can wax poetic how it's not nessecarily correct but that's because you are ignoring the woman who did not consent to the process. Like, if I posted a nude then that's on the internet forever. But now, any picture at all can be made nude and posted to the internet forever. You're entirely removing consent from the equation you ass.
I'm not arguing whether people should or should not have control over whether others can produce a nude (or lewd) likeness or perpetuate false scandal, only that this technology doesn't change the equation. People have been accused of debauchery and scorned long before the invention of the camera, let alone digital editing.
Julia the Elder was portrayed (poorly, mind you) in sexual congress on Roman graffiti. Marie Antoinette was accused of a number of debauched sexual acts she didn't fully comprehend. Marie Antoinette actually had an uninteresting sex life. It was accusations of The German Vice (id est lesbianism) that were the most believable and quickened her path to the guillotine.
The movie, The Contender (2000) addresses the issue with happenstance evidence. A woman politician was caught on video inflagrante delicto at a frat party in her college years just as she was about to be appointed as a replacement Vice President.
Law enforcement still regards sexts between underage teens as child porn, and our legal system will gladly incarcerate those teens for the crime of expressing their intimacy to their lovers. (Maine, I believe, is the sole exception, having finally passed laws to let teens use picture messaging to court each other.) So when it comes to the intersection of human sexuality and technology, so far we suck at navigating it.
To be fair, when it comes to human sexuality at all, US society sucks at navigating it. We still don't discuss consent in grade school. I can't speak for anywhere else in the world, though I've not heard much good news.
The conversation about revenge porn (which has been made illegal without the consent of all participants in the US) appears to inform how society regards explicit content of private citizens. I can't speak to paparazzi content. Law hasn't quite caught up with Photoshop, let alone deepfakes and content made with generative AI systems.
But my point was, public life, whether in media, political, athletic or otherwise, is competitive and involves rivalries that get dirty. Again, if we, as a species actually had the capacity for reason, we would be able to choose our cause célèbre with rationality, and not judge someone because some teenager prompted a genAI platform to create a convincing scandalous video.
I think we should be above that, as a society, but we aren't. My point was that I don't fully understand the mechanism by which our society holds contempt for others due to circumstances outside their control, a social behavior I find more abhorrent than using tech to create a fictional image of someone in the buff for private use.
Sadly, fictitious explicit media can be as effective as a character assassination tool as the real thing. I think it should be otherwise. I think we should be better than that, but we're not. I am, consequently frustrated and disappointed with my society and my species. And while I think we're going to need to be more mature about it, I've opined this since high school in the 1980s and things have only gotten worse.
At the same time, it's like the FGC-9, the tech cannot be contained any than we can stop software piracy with DRM. Nor can we trust the community at large to use it responsibly. So yes, you can expect explicit media of colleagues to fly much the way accusations of child sexual assault flew in the 1990s (often without evidence in middle and upper management. It didn't matter.) And we may navigate it pretty much the same way, with the same high rate of career casualties.
An artist doesn't need your consent to paint/ draw you. A photographer doesn't need your consent if your in public. You likely posted your original picture in public (yay facebook). Unfortunately consent was never a concern here... and you likely gave it anyway.
Are you seriously saying that since I am walking in public I am giving concent to photos taken of me and turned nude?
You've lost your damn mind.
Nope. Quite the opposite in that consent is not required.
Edit: You have no right to restrict someone else from taking photos and videos while in public. Period. Their purpose and use doesn't matter (commercial usage can be limited to some extents). https://lifehacker.com/know-your-rights-photography-in-public-5912250
There are limits regarding the right to take pictures in public. Instances of creepshot photographers have raised issues of good faith. For-purpose media (a street scene in the news, for instance, requires that any foreground person must have consent, or must be censored out.
So, dependjng on your state and county (or nation) it may be a crime to take pictures of someone else with an intent to use them as a foreground element without their consent (explicit or otherwise).
This is why I said this...
But let's look at it this way...
https://www.earthcam.com/world/ireland/dublin/?cam=templebar
https://www.earthcam.com/usa/florida/lauderdalebythesea/town/?cam=lbts_beach
https://www.earthcam.com/usa/florida/naples/?cam=naplespier
https://www.earthcam.com/world/southkorea/seoul/songridangil/?cam=songridan_gil
https://www.earthcam.com/world/israel/jerusalem/?cam=jerusalem
So why is nothing on this site blurred? If there are "limits" why is there literally cameras being streamed of public places that can have faces in the foreground pretty clearly without consent. EVEN CHILDREN! WHO WILL THINK OF THE CHILDREN! (/s) Earthcam makes money doing this...
How about literally every company with a security camera?
This is never litigated under the issue of pictures in public. This is always done under stalking/harassment laws. None of them are ever just "He took a picture that I'm in".
How about if I buy stock photos and feed that into the AI system. Does that count since they didn't intend for that to be it's use? "Creepy" and "morally wrong" isn't necessarily illegal. The concern isn't the public photography and actually ownership of the photo belongs to the person who takes the photos not the subjects in the photo. So yes, you don't particularly have much recourse unless you can prove damages that falls under some other law. Case and point Paparazzi... I mean there's literally been lawsuits where the settlement was in favor of the photographer AGAINST the subject https://sports-entertainment.brooklaw.edu/media/a-new-type-of-internet-troll-how-paparazzi-use-copyright-law-to-cash-out-on-celebritys-instagram-posts/ She used a photo on her insta from that paparazzi, the paparazzi sued, settlement was reached and the photo was removed. She didn't have license to use that photo, even though it's her in the picture. You can find this shit literally everywhere. We've already litigated this to death. Now we all think that paparazzi are generally scum... but that doesn't make it illegal.
What is new here is does an AI generated thing count as something special on it's own in a legal perspective. The act of obtaining pictures while in public is not really a debate even if they were obtained to create a derivative work. I fall on the side of the AI generated thing being fair use. It's a transformation of the original work and doesn't violate your actual privacy (certainly not any more than taking pictures of a nude beach). IMO any other stance would negate so much other shit that we all rely on (meme-culture specifically) that it's hypocritical to hold any other stance. Do I like that... Not really, but it doesn't make sense otherwise.
The draw to these apps is that the user can exploit anyone they want. It's not really about sex, it's about power.
Human society is about power. It is because we can't get past dominance hierarchy that our communities do nothing about schoolyard bullies, or workplace sexual harassment. It is why abstinence-only sex-ed has nothing positive to say to victims of sexual assault, once they make it clear that used goods are used goods.
Our culture agrees by consensus that seeing a woman naked, whether a candid shot, caught inflagrante delicto or rendered from whole cloth by a generative AI system, redefines her as a sexual object, reducing her qualifications as a worker, official or future partner. That's a lot of power to give to some guy with X-ray Specs, and it speaks poorly of how society regards women, or human beings in general.
We disregard sex workers, too.
Violence sucks, but without the social consensus the propagates sexual victimhood, it would just be violence. Sexual violence is extra awful because the rest of society actively participates in making it extra awful.
Dude I can imagine people naked in my head.
Yes I think this ai trend is sad and people who use these service, it says a lot about what kind of person they are. And it also says a lot about what kind of company meta is.
I suspect it's more affecting for younger people who don't really think about the fact that in reality, no one has seen them naked. Probably traumatizing for them and logic doesn't really apply in this situation.
Does it really matter though? "Well you see, they didn't actually see you naked, it was just a photorealistic approximation of what you would look like naked".
At that point I feel like the lines get very blurry, it's still going to be embarrassing as hell, and them not being "real" nudes is not a big comfort when having to confront the fact that there are people masturbating to your "fake" nudes without your consent.
I think in a few years this won't really be a problem because by then these things will be so widespread that no one will care, but right now the people being specifically targeted by this must not be feeling great.
It depends where you are in the world. In the Middle East, even a deepfake of you naked could get you killed if your family is insane.
It depends very much on the individual apparently. I don't have a huge data set but there are girls that I know that have had this has happened to them, and some of them have just laughed it off and really not seemed like they cared. But again they were in their mid twenties not 18 or 19.
Technology isn't doing shit to society. Society is fucking itself like it always has.
No it is the entities doing it
You're an entity.
Fuck you are right
I think the offense is in the use of their facial likeness far more than their body.
If you took a naked super-sized barbie doll and plastered Taylor Swift's face on it, then presented it to an audience for the purpose of jerking off, the argument "that's not what Taylor's tits look like!" wouldn't save you.
Unregulated advertisement combined with a clickbait model for online marketing is fueling this deluge of creepy shit. This isn't simply a "Computers Evil!" situation. Its much more that a handful of bad actors are running Silicon Valley into the ground.
Not so much computers evil! as just acknowledging there will always be malicious actors who will find clever ways to use technology to cause harm. And yes, there's a gathering of folk on 4Chan/b who nudify (denudify?) submitted pictures, usually of people they know, which, thanks to the process, puts them out on the internet. So this is already a problem.
Think of Murphy's Law as it applies to product stress testing. Eventually, some customer is going to come in having broke the part you thought couldn't be broken. Also, our vast capitalist society is fueled by people figuring out exploits in the system that haven't been patched or criminalized (see the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008). So we have people actively looking to utilize technology in weird ways to monetize it. That folds neatly like paired gears into looking at how tech can cause harm.
As for people's faces, one of the problems of facial recognition as a security tool (say when used by law enforcement to track perps) is the high number of false positives. It turns out we look a whole lot like each other. Though your doppleganger may be in another state and ten inches taller / shorter. In fact, an old (legal!) way of getting explicit shots of celebrities from the late 20th century was to find a look-alike and get them to pose for a song.
As for famous people, fake nudes have been a thing for a while, courtesy of Photoshop or some other digital photo-editing set combined with vast libraries of people. Deepfakes have been around since the late 2010s. So even if generative AI wasn't there (which is still not great for video in motion) there are resources for fabricating content, either explicit or evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is why we are terrified of AI getting out of hand, not because our experts don't know what they're doing, but because the companies are very motivated to be the first to get it done, and that means making the kinds of mistakes that cause pipeline leakage on sacred Potawatomi tribal land.
I mean, I'm increasingly of the opinion that AI is smoke and mirrors. It doesn't work and it isn't going to cause some kind of Great Replacement any more than a 1970s Automat could eliminate the restaurant industry.
Its less the computers themselves and more the fear surrounding them that seem to keep people in line.
The current presumption that generative AI will replace workers is smoke and mirrors, though the response by upper management does show the degree to which they would love to replace their human workforce with machines, or replace their skilled workforce with menial laborers doing simpler (though more tedious) tasks.
If this is regarded as them tipping their hands, we might get regulations that serve the workers of those industries. If we're lucky.
In the meantime, the pursuit of AGI is ongoing, and the LLMs and generative AI projects serve to show some of the tools we have.
It's not even that we'll necessarily know when it happens. It's not like we can detect consciousness (or are even sure what consciousness / self awareness / sentience is). At some point, if we're not careful, we'll make a machine that can deceive and outthink its developers and has the capacity of hostility and aggression.
There's also the scenario (suggested by Randall Munroe) that some ambitious oligarch or plutocrat gains control of a system that can manage an army of autonomous killer robots. Normally such people have to contend with a principal cabinet of people who don't always agree with them. (Hitler and Stalin both had to argue with their generals.) An AI can proceed with a plan undisturbed by its inhumane implications.
hmmm . i’m not sure we will be able to give emotion to something that has no needs, no living body, and doesn’t die. maybe. but it seems to me that emotions are survival tools that develop as beings and their environment develop, in order to keep a species alive. i could be wrong.
I can see how increased integration and automation of various systems consolidates power in fewer and fewer hands. For instance, the ability of Columbia administrators to rapidly identify and deactivate student ID cards and lock hundreds of protesters out of their dorms with the flip of a switch was really eye-opening. That would have been far more difficult to do 20 years ago, when I was in school.
But that's not an AGI issue. That's a "everyone's ability to interact with their environment now requires authentication via a central data hub" issue. And its illusionary. Yes, you're electronically locked out of your dorm, but it doesn't take a lot of savvy to pop through a door that's been propped open with a brick by a friend.
I think this fear heavily underweights how much human labor goes into building, maintaining, and repairing autonomous killer robots. The idea that a singular megalomaniac could command an entire complex system - hell, that the commander could even comprehend the system they intended to hijack - presumes a kind of Evil Genius Leader that never seems to show up IRL.
Meanwhile, there's no shortage of bloodthirsty savages running around Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan, butchering civilians and blowing up homes with sadistic glee. You don't need a computer to demonstrate inhumanity towards other people. If anything, its our human-ness that makes this kind of senseless violence possible. Only deep ethnic animus gives you the impulse to diligently march around butchering pregnant women and toddlers, in a region that's gripped by famine and caught in a deadly heat wave.
Would that all the killing machines were run by some giant calculator, rather than a motley assortment of sickos and freaks who consider sadism a fringe benefit of the occupation.
it’s totally smoke and mirrors. i’m amazed that so many people seem to believe it. for a few things, sure. most things? not a chance in hell.
Regardless of what one might think should happen or expect to happen, the actual psychological effect is harmful to the victim. It's like if you walked up to someone and said "I'm imagining you naked" that's still harassment and off-putting to the person, but the image apps have been shown to have much much more severe effects.
It's like the demonstration where they get someone to feel like a rubber hand is theirs, then hit it with a hammer. It's still a negative sensation even if it's not a strictly logical one.
How dare that other person i don't know and will never meet gain sexual stimulation!
My body is not inherently for your sexual simulation. Downloading my picture does not give you the right to turn it in to porn.
Did you miss what this post is about? In this scenario it’s literally not your body.
There is nothing stopping anyone from using it on my body. Seriously, get a fucking grip.
Do you have nudes out there? Because if not then yes, that would stop people. The ai can’t magically reveal what’s actually under your clothes.
You've lost this argument when you don't even know what the argument is about.
The problem isn't what is actually under because only you or people you choose would know that, the problem is it appears like it's what is actually under your clothes. What do you think people should do, say "That's not what I actually look like naked, this is what I actually look like naked" or something?
Literally yes. As this becomes a more prevalent, widespread issue, eventually we’re going to reach a point where seeing a nude of someone is effectively meaningless, as it’s just as likely that it’s fake as it is real.
This is just a transitional phase. It’s going to be rough for sure, especially with how puritan and judgmental our culture is, but my point stands.
This is such a dumb argument. Nobody is claiming that the AI can show you what's actually beneath a person's clothes. The nudes being fake doesn't resolve the ethical issue of creating porn of people who never agreed to it.
The people doing mental gymnastics about this stuff are just telling on themselves. Don't make fake porn of real people, and if you do, be prepared to be rightfully treated as a sexual predator if anyone finds out.
Look at their next comment, that’s literally what they think is happening.
And it should resolve it. The idea of someone picturing us in their head, photoshopping us, or drawing us, can be incredibly creepy, yeah, but nobody has ever tried to make it illegal.
Also is this an argument of ethics or legality? They’re not inherently the same. Like, I think it’s unethical to insult random people in the street, but it sure as hell shouldn’t be illegal.
As for your last part, it’s funny because I’ve literally never done this. Ironically enough, I find it too creepy to even try, but in the same way that photoshopping or drawing someone nude would be. Incredibly creepy, but not illegal.
You seem to have reading comprehension issues. They said that this could be done to their body, which is 100% true.
Any picture of anyone can be processed with an AI, and "nudified". Yes, the AI generated portions of the image are fake, and likely won't resemble the person's actual body under their clothing. Results are probably more accurate for photos of people in swimsuits vs more conservative outfits but...
...that doesn't matter. If you're modifying a picture of a real person to make them nude, even without AI, it amounts to sexually violating the person in the original image. Even if you're just photoshopping their face into porn, that's fucking vile and I see no reason there shouldn't be real consequences for it - especially if these images are shared with others.
Nobody defends this shit like you are unless they are doing it themselves. With that said, reevaluate yourself and stop sexually violating women.
It sounded like they thought the AI would literally reveal their body tho, which simply isn’t true. They clarified what they meant in a newer comment tho, so that’s my fault for misunderstanding.
Ultimately I would agree that sharing these images shouldn’t be legal, just as afaik it’s not legal to share real nudes without the person’s explicit consent. I imagine it would fall into the same vein as revenge porn.
But imo it shouldn’t be illegal to make them. It’s really no different than what people have been doing for thousands of years, whether that’s simply imaging the person, drawing them, or more recently, photoshopping them.
Is it creepy as fuck? Absolutely, but not everything I find gross should be outlawed. Take a second to think about how we would go about outlawing the use of photoshopped nudes, for example, and you’ll see the dark violating path we would need to go down to make that enforceable.
Regardless, it’s funny but I actually don’t do any of this shit, I ironically find it too weird, I don’t think I’d be able to look at myself in the mirror afterwards lol. But I still defend the fact that it shouldn’t be illegal. I defend the legality of lots of stuff that I don’t personally do.
Edit: Sorry my last paragraph is effectively the same as my prior explanation. I didn’t realize you were the one I’d already explained this to, so I was just reiterating. But again no, I literally don’t use any of this shit. The most I’ve ever done is use those prompt websites to make some bizarre psychedelic art, or see what typing in my username would result in.
They didn't say anything like that. You can go back and re-read the thread yourself. If you were wrong, own up to it, but absolutely fuck off with this "well, ackshually" troll response.
If you view sexual assault as a form of free speech, expect to be treated for the kind of person you're telling everyone that you are.
I literally did own up to it, I said it was my fault for misunderstanding.
Regardless, nobody is viewing assault as free speech. Look up the definition of a strawman.
I hope if you choose to respond that you’ll take some time to calm down. I don’t mean to be invalidating, so I’m sorry if it comes across that way, but this comment was pretty rough.
Even so though, I don’t mean to say that your anger is unwarranted, I mean hell if I thought someone was advocating for assault to be a protected speech, and then shrugging off blame when proven wrong about something, I’d be pissed off too. Especially with a topic as sensitive as this. But I hope you can recognize that I’m not at all doing that, or at the very least that it’s not my intention. Like I said, I owned up to my mistake right away once I realized that I’d misunderstood.
Scroll back up.
Entirely screw off with this gaslighting BS.
That’s their pitch, it’s their way of advertising to people. The ai isn’t literally psychic. All the ai is doing is guessing by using a database of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of naked bodies, and trying to fill in the blanks based on what it thinks yours probably looks like.
The AI isn’t magic, it doesn’t have the ability to somehow reveal what you look like without knowing. It’s the equivalent of really good photoshop effectively.
You haven't explained anything I didn't already know. Of course it's not psychic nor 100% accurate to real life.
But this is flat out bullshit and wildly disingenuous. You're entirely ignoring the fact that when it's posted that no one but the creator of the deepfake knows its fake. Everyone else just sees a nude. You are playing semantics while ignoring the actual harm.
At this point, I just see you as a troll who isn't interested in any sort of good faith discussion.
I’m not trying to be disingenuous, it genuinely sounded like you didn’t realize, that’s my bad.
Imo as these become widespread, we’ll inevitably reach a point where nudes simply don’t matter. If anyone can create a nude of someone else with next to no effort in seconds, then a nude getting “leaked” would have next to no impact or relevance.
Right now we live in a pretty puritan society, so the transitional phase is going to suck and people are going to be hurt. Obviously that’s awful, and none of this should take away from that fact, I feel horrible for the people negatively impacted by this. And while that’s all true, it’s also true that as we continue going down this road we’ll reach a point where it simply won’t matter anymore.
You get to tell me what i can and cannot think about in my own head?
WTF?
There is a huge ass difference between your personal thoughts and using a subjects social media, a database of existing nudes and AI to have REAL MEDIA produced.
Seriously, not even remotely similar and its frankly disturbing that this is even your thought process.
If thought crime is a thing, im out.
That is crossing the Rubicon.
There is no harm done to you or your body with an AI generated image or video.
Blackmail and extortion are crimes of their own, as are rape and sexual assault.
But thinking about something and using tools to visualize it are not crimes.
Maybe society overreacts to nudity. Maybe society's attitude to sex needs to change. Maybe opression and regulation of sex has been a major form of control over society and oppression of certain groups.
People are too concerned with their own junk to see the actual issue.
lmao
It's not thoughtcrime you giant crybaby.
This is SUCH a huge leap. You have a right to your thoughts, not databases, programming and services to generate media.
Stay classy, fascist.
You want to limit what data people can collect and share what programs they can write.
Why stop there?
Prohibit what paintings they cam make. What drawings can be drawn. What words can be written.
Fascist.
LMAO!
Picture me openly laughing right in your damn face. This is such a hilarious use of the word that I can't even begin to take it serious and it's a tragedy that YOU are taking it serious. I'm sorry you feel so entitled to other peoples bodies and likeness. That is honestly very sad for you.
I'm saying it's wrong to do this because of the harm it causes, not outlawing and executing those that make the code. But that distinction is lost on you because "fascism" is anything you don't like. Absolutely hilarious.
(P.S I am screenshot this and show it to as many people as I can)
Can U haz chzbrgr?
If the people you show this to have any intelligence, or understanding of the Bill of Rights, they will laugh in your face.
I think half the people who are offended don’t get this.
The other half think that it’s enough to cause hate.
Both arguments rely on enough people being stupid.
Lot of people in this thread who don't seem to understand what sexual exploitation is. I've argued about this exact subject on threads like this before.
It is absolutely horrifying that someone you know could take your likeness and render it into a form for their own sexual gratification. It doesn't matter that it's ai rendered. The base image is still you, the face in the image is still your face, and you are still the object being sexualized. I can't describe how disgusting that is. If you do not see the problem in that I don't know what to tell you. This will be used on images of normal non-famous women. It will be used on pictures from the social media profiles of teenage girls. These ads were on a platform with millions of personal accounts of women and girls. It's sickening. There is no consent involved here. It's non-consensual pornography.
Is there such a thing as a consensual undressing app? Seems redundant
There isn't, but emphasis on why it's an issue is always a good thing to do. Same reason people get upset when some articles say "had sex with a minor" or "involved in a relationship with a minor" when the accurate crime is "raped a minor."
If you (the news) are going to use flowery language, at least imply its a crime!
Its not that hard!
BRB. Got an idea for a start-up
Theoretically any of these apps could be used with consent.
In practice I can't imagine that would be a particularly large part of their market...
Now I have this image of an OnlyFans girl who just fake nudes all her pictures. Would make doing public nudity style pictures a lot easier.
Y'know, as long as she's open about it that would be a great use of the tech.
"hey send me some nudes!"
"Ugh... I'm already on the couch in my pajamas. Here's a pic of me at the coffee shop today, just use the app, it's close enough."
I assume that's what you'd call OnlyFans.
That said, the irony of these apps is that its not the nudity that's the problem, strictly speaking. Its taking someone's likeness and plastering it on a digital manikin. What social media has done has become the online equivalent of going through a girl's trash to find an old comb, pulling the hair off, and putting it on a barbie doll that you then use to jerk/jill off.
What was the domain of 1980s perverts from comedies about awkward high schoolers has now become a commodity we're supposed to treat as normal.
Idk how many people are viewing this as normal, I think most of us recognize all of this as being incredibly weird and creepy.
Maybe not "Lemmy" us. But the folks who went hog wild during The Fappening, combined with younger people who are coming into contact with pornography for the first time, make a ripe base of users who will consider this the new normal.
Yeah damn, that’s true.
An obvious answer would be to talk to younger people about it, to explain how gross and violating it is. Even if it doesn’t become illegal, there are plenty of legal things that people avoid and recognize are bad because they were taught correctly.
Unfortunately, due to how puritan our society is, I can’t imagine many parents would be willing to talk to their kids about stuff like this.
You just took my feeling on this issue and put it to words
I guess it's really in whether you use it with consent. I used one on my own picture just to see how it worked. It gave me huge tits but other than that was scarily accurate.
Neat. Ladies only or does it do dudes too?
I'm a dude, it's just a clever name. It'll do dudes, it's just gonna give you huge tits. What you're into is, of course, your business.
My interest in this topic just went from 0 to 10 upon realizing the humour potential of passing it around to see all my bros with huge tits, but only if it worked like a Snapchat filter.
Also I have a friend who already has huge tits, and I've seen them IRL so I'm curious what it would do
Being serious for a moment, it depends on the source image. If it can tell where the contours of the tits are in the source image, they'll be closer to the right size and shape - otherwise it's going to find something it thinks are the contours and map out tits that match those, then generic torso that matches the shape of where it thinks the torso is and skintone of the face. It's not magic, it's just automating what a horndog with photoshop, a photo of you and a big enough porn collection to find someone with a similar body type could do back in the 90s.
I'm familiar with how ML works so it's not magic to me either, but the actual result is what would intrigue me. Since she has big naturals obviously they hang pretty heavy when they're set free.
But if I fed it a picture of her wearing a tight push-up bra, which could easily give off the impression that she had implants, would I get a pair of bolt-ons back? Or would it be able to pick up on the signs of real tits and add some sag?
Seeing how it'll put tits on men it's obviously not an exact science lol
that would just be instructions, wouldn't it?
So many of these comments are breaking down into arguments of basic consent for pics, and knowing how so many people are, I sure wonder how many of those same people post pics of their kids on social media constantly and don't see the inconsistency.
There isn’t really many good reasons to post your kid’s picture anyway.
And yet that seems to be 60% of my wife's facebook feed... I forbade her from posting our kids years ago.
Good, let all celebs come together and sue zuck into the ground
Its funny how many people leapt to the defense of Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 230 liability protection, as this helps shield social media firms from assuming liability for shit like this.
Sort of the Heads-I-Win / Tails-You-Lose nature of modern business-friendly legislation and courts.
Section 230 is what allows for social media at all given the problem of content moderation at scale is still unsolved. Take away 230 and no company will accept the liability. But we will have underground forums teeming with white power terrorists signalling, CSAM and spam offering better penis pills and Nigerian princes.
The Google advertising system is also difficult to moderate at scale, but since Google makes money directly off ads, and loses money when YouTube content is not brand safe, Google tends to be harsh on content creators and lenient on advertisers.
It's not a new problem, and nudification software is just the latest version of X-Ray Specs (which is to say weve been hungry to see teh nekkid for a very long time.) The worst problem is when adverts install spyware or malware onto your device without your consent, which is why you need to adblock Forbes Magazine...or really just everything.
However much of the world's public discontent is fueled by information on the internet (Some false, some misleading, some true. A whole lot more that's simultaneously true and heinous than we'd like in our society). So most of our officials would be glad to end Section 230 and shut down the flow of camera footage showing police brutality, or starving people in Gaza or fracking mishaps releasing gigatons of rogue methane into the atmosphere. Our officials would very much love if we'd go back to being uninformed with the news media telling us how it's sure awful living in the Middle East.
Without 230, we could go back to George W. Bush era methods, and just get our news critical of the White House from foreign sources, and compare the facts to see that they match, signalling our friends when we detect false propaganda.
Isn't it kinda funny that the "most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet," yet this article is locked behind a paywall?
The proximity of these two phrases meaning entirely opposite things indicates that this article, when interpreted as an amorphous cloud of words without syntax or grammar, is total nonsense.
The arrogant bastards!
youtube has been for like 6 or 7 months. even with famous people in the ads. I remember one for a while with Ortega
Ortega? The taco sauce?
::: spoiler NSFW-ish
:::
I sat down with tacos as I opened up that reply.
Witch.
I guess that's an OERGAsm
Don't use that as lube.
Sharing this screenshot again, to drive the point home.
What in the fuck are all these photos of kids? They're not part of the ad?
This was from a test I did with a throwaway account on IG where I followed a handful of weirdo parents who run "model" accounts for their kids to see if Instagram would start pushing problematic content as a result (spoiler: yes they will).
It took about 5 minutes from creating the account to end up with nothing but dressed down kids on my recommendations page paired with inappropriate ads. I guess the people who follow kids on IG also like these recommended photos, and the algorithm also figures they must be perverts, but doesn't care about the sickening juxtaposition of children in swimsuits next to AI nudifying apps.
Don't use Meta products. They don't care about ethics, just profits.
The other day, I had an ad on facebook that was basically lolicon. It depicted a clearly underage anime girl in a sexually suggestive position on a motorcycle with their panties almost off. I am in Germany, Facebook knows I am in Germany and if I took a screenshot of that ad and saved it, it would probably be classed as CSAM in my jurisdiction. I reported the ad and got informed that FB found "nothing wrong" with it a few days later. Fuck off, you child predators.
I logged into my throwaway account today just to check in on it since people are talking about this shit more. I was immediately greeted with an ad featuring hardcore pornography, among the pics of kids that still populate my feed.
I'll spare you the screenshot, but IG is fucked.
okay enough internet for me today
Coupled with the article about pedos blackmailing kids with their fake nudes to get real ones, this makes my stomach turn and eyes water. So much evil in this world. I am happy to say I deleted my FB and IG accounts a few days ago. WhatsApp is tough to leave due to family though... Slowly getting people to switch over to safer and more ethical alternatives.
This 100%. I can't even bring myself to buy new content for my Quest now that I'm aware of the issues (no matter how much I want the latest Beat Saber and Synth Riders DLC), especially since Meta's Horizon, in my experience, puts adults into direct contact with children. At first I just dismissed metaverse games like VRChat or Horizon as being too popular with kids for me to enjoy it, but now I realize that it put me, an adult, straight into voice chats with tweens, which people should fucking know better than to do. My first thought was to log off because I wasn't having fun in a kid-dominated space, but I have no doubt that these apps are crawling with creeps who see that as a feature rather than a problem.
We need education for parents that sharing pictures of their kids online comes with real risks, as does giving kids free reign to use the Internet. The laissez faire attitude many people have towards social media needs to be corrected, because real harm is already being done.
Most of the parents that post untoward pics of their kids online are chasing down opportunities for their kids to model, and they're ignoring the fact that a significant volume of engagement these photos receive comes from people objectifying children. There seems to be a pattern that the most revealing outfits get the most engagement, and so future pictures are equally if not more revealing to chase more engagement...
Parents might not understand how disturbing these patterns are until they've already dumped thousands of pictures online, and at that point they're likely to be in denial about what they're exposing their kids to, and/or too invested to want to reverse course.
We also need to have a larger conversation, as a society, about using kids as models at all. Pretty much every major manufacturer of children's clothing is hiring real kids to model the clothes. I don't think it's necessary to be publishing that many pictures of kids online, nor is it acceptable to be doing so for profit. There's no reason not to limit modeling to adults who can consent to putting their bodies on public display, and using mannequins for kids' clothing. The sheer volume of kids' swimsuit and underwear pictures hosted on e-commerce sites is likely a contributor to the capability Generative AI models have to create inappropriate images of children, not to mention the actual CSAM found in the LAION dataset most of these models are trained on.
Sorry for the long rant, this shit pisses me off. I need to consider sending 404 Media everything I know since they're doing investigations into this kind of thing. My small scale investigation has revealed a lot to me, but more people need to be getting as upset as I am about it if we want to make the Internet less of a hellscape.
Wow, that is really disturbing. WTF, IG?
I feel like you've just set me up for an FBI visit.
Send 'em to Zuck.
The idea that the children in this photo are ment to be seen in the same context of a porn site (or at least somthing using the pornhub logo likeness) is discusting.
DISCLAIMER: Ive havent gone throught this myself but know what porn adiction feels like. its not fun and will warp who you are on the inside.
Anyone lured for any reason to this site, DO NOT ENGUAGE it WILL HURT YOU! If for whatever reason theve put their hooks in you and are reeling you in, Use stratigies that Alcoholics Anonimous use. LITERALLY ANYTHING is better than using pictures of REAL CHILDREN for sexual grtification.
Shit ain’t right.
AI gives creative license to anyone who can communicate their desires well enough. Every great advancement in the media age has been pushed in one way or another with porn, so why would this be different?
I think if a person wants visual "material," so be it. They're doing it with their imagination anyway.
Now, generating fake media of someone for profit or malice, that should get punishment. There's going to be a lot of news cycles with some creative perversion and horrible outcomes intertwined.
I'm just hoping I can communicate the danger of some of the social media platforms to my children well enough. That's where the most damage is done with the kind of stuff.
The porn industry is, in fact, extremely hostile to AI image generation. How can anyone make money off porn if users simply create their own?
Also I wouldn't be surprised if the it's false advertising and in clicking the ad will in fact just take you to a webpage with more ads, and a link from there to more ads, and more ads, and so on until eventually users either give up (and hopefully click on an ad).
Whatever's going on, the ad is clearly a violation of instagram's advertising terms.
It's just not your children you need to communicate it to. It's all the other children they interact with. For example I know a young girl (not even a teenager yet) who is being bullied on social media lately - the fact she doesn't use social media herself doesn't stop other people from saying nasty things about her in public (and who knows, maybe they're even sharing AI generated CSAM based on photos they've taken of her at school).
What, you mean like amateur porn or..?
Seems like professional porn still does great after over two decades of free internet porn so..
I guess they will solve this one the same way, by having better production quality. 🤷
I think old people are the ones less likely to understand this stuff.
How old? My parents certainly understand this, may great-parants not so much and my son not yet (5yo)
70 or older in my family. My dad's wife just posted an excited post on Facebook about a Tesla Concorde taking off, and do had to explain to her that it's a flight simulator. She's 73.
I see, that is nearly as old as my great parents 😮
That bidding model for ads should be illegal. Alternatively, companies displaying them should be responsible/be able to tell where it came from. Misinformarion has become a real problem, especially in politics.
This is not okay, but this is nowhere near the most harmful application of AI.
The most harmful application of AI that I can think of would disrupting a country’s entire culture via gaslighting social media bots, leading to increases in addiction, hatred, suicide, and murder.
Putting hundreds of millions of people into a state of hopeless depression would be more harmful than creating a picture of a naked woman with a real woman’s face on it.
Isn't that happening? I assumed it was.
I don't want to fall into a slippery slope argument, but I really see this as the tip of a horrible iceberg. Seeing women as sexual objects starts with this kind of non consensual media, but also includes non consensual approaches (like a man that thinks he can subtly touch women in full public transport and excuse himself with the lack of space), sexual harassment, sexual abuse, forced prostitution (it's hard to know for sure, but possibly the majority of prostitution), human trafficking (in which 75%-79% go into forced prostitution, which causes that human trafficking is mostly done to women), and even other forms of violence, torture, murder, etc.
Thus, women live their lives in fear (in varying degrees depending on their country and circumstances). They are restricted in many ways. All of this even in first world countries. For example, homeless women fearing going to shelters because of the situation with SA and trafficking that exists there; women retiring from or not entering jobs (military, scientific exploration, etc.) because of their hostile sexual environment; being alert and often scared when alone because they can be targets, etc. I hopefully don't need to explain the situation in third world countries, just look at what's legal and imagine from there...
This is a reality, one that is:
Again, I want to be very clear, I'm not equating these tools to the horrible things I mentioned. I'm saying that it is part of the same problem in a lighter presentation. It is the tip of the iceberg. It is a symptom of a systemic and cultural problem. The AI by itself may be less catastrophic in consequences, rarely leading to permanent damage (I can only see it being the case if the victim develops chronic or pervasive health problems by the stress of the situation, like social anxiety, or commits suicide). It is still important to acknowledge the whole machinery so we can dimension what we are facing, and to really face it because something must change. The first steps might be against this "on the surface" "not very harmful" forms of sexual violence.
ITT: A bunch of creepy fuckers who dont think society should judge them for being fucking creepy
Capitalism works! It breeds innovation like this! good luck getting non consensual ai porn in your socialist government
It’s ironic because the “free market” part of capitalism is defined by consent. Capitalism is literally “the form of economic cooperation where consent is required before goods and money change hands”.
Unfortunately, it only refers to the two primary parties to a transaction, ignoring anyone affected by externalities to the deal.
the above comment was written by a person who's lack of understanding of consent suggests they are almost certainly guilty of sex crimes.
Something that can also happen: require Facebook login with some excuse, then blackmail the creeps by telling "pay us this extortion or we're going to send proof of your creepiness to your contacts"
Another something that can also happen: require facebook login with some excuse, plant shit on your enemy’s computer, then blackmail them by threatening to frame them as creeps.
Sometimes the reason a method is frowned upon is that it is equally usable for evil as for good.
So, if the AI generated tits look real, but they're not HER tits, is it just less terrible?
I mean literally yes, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t still horrible
This reminded me of those kid's who made pornographic so videos of their classmates.
“Major Social Media Company Profits From App That Creats Unauthorized Nudes! Pay Us So You Can Read About It!”
What a shitshow.
404 Media is worker owned; you should pay them.
Am I the only one who doesn't care about this?
Photoshop has existed for some time now, so creating fake nudes just became easier.
Also why would you care if someone jerks off to a photo you uploaded, regardless of potential nude edits. They can also just imagine you naked.
If you don't want people to jerk off to your photos, don't upload any. It happens with and without these apps.
But Instagram selling apps for it is kinda fucked, since it's very anti-porn, but then sells apps for it (to children).
It's about consent. If you have no problem with people jerking off to your pictures, fine, but others do.
You get that that opinion is pretty much the same as those who say if she didn't want to be harrassed she shouldn't have worn such provocative clothing!?
How about we allow people to upload whatever pictures they want and try to address the weirdos turning them into porn without consent, rather than blaming the victims?
Of course, but people have been doing this since the dawn of time. So unless the plan is to incorporate the Thought Police, there’s no way to actually stop it from happening.
Maybe, but we can certainly help by, amongst many other things, not advertising AI Nude Apps on Instagram. Ultimately what we shouldn't be doing is blaming the victims by implying they are somehow at fault for having the audacity to upload pictures of themselves to the Internet.
I agree completely with the last part of your comment at least, that other comment unironically saying that it’s the women’s fault for dressing the way they do is bizarre and archaic.
Nah it's more like: If she didn't want people to jerk off thinking about her, she shouldn't have worn such provocative clothing.
I honestly don't think we should encourage uploading this many photos as private people, but that's something else.
You don't need consent to jerk off to someone's photos. You do need consent to tell them about it. Creating images is a bit riskier, but if you make sure no one ever sees them, there is no actual harm done.
I think it's clear you have never experienced being sexualized when you weren't okay with it. It's a pretty upsetting experience that can feel pretty violating. And as most guys rarely if ever experience being sexualized, never mind when they don't want to be, I'm not surprised people might be unable to emphasize
Having experienced being sexualized when I wasn't comfortable with it, this kind of thing makes me kinda sick to be honest. People are used to having a reasonable expectation that posting safe for work pictures online isn't inviting being sexualized. And that it would almost never be turned into pornographic material featuring their likeness, whether it was previously possible with Photoshop or not.
It's not surprising people would find the loss of that reasonable assumption discomforting given how uncomfortable it is to be sexualized when you don't want to be. How uncomfortable a thought it is that you can just be going about your life and minding your own business, and it will now be convenient and easy to produce realistic porn featuring your likeness, at will, with no need for uncommon skills not everyone has
Interesting (wrong) assumption there buddy.
But why would I care how people think of me? If it influences their actions, we gonna start to have problems, tho.
Fair enough, I'm sorry for making assumptions about you.
I do think my points stand though
Imagining and creating physical (even digial) material are different levels of how real and tangible it feels. Don't you think?
There is an active act of carefully editing those pictures involved. It's a misuse and against your intention when you posted such a picture of yourself. You are loosing control by that and become unwillingly part of the sexual act of someone else.
Sure, those, who feel violated by that, might also not like if people imagine things, but that's still a less "real" level.
For example: Imagining to murder someone is one thing. Creating very explicit pictures about it and watching them regularly, or even printing them and hanging them on the walls of one's room, is another.
I don't want to equate murder fantasies with sexual ones. My point is to illustrate that it feels to me and obviously a lot of other people that there are significant differences between pure imagination and creating something tangible out of it.
Oh no, hanging the pictures on your wall is fucked.
The difference is if someone else can reasonably find out. If I tell someone that I think about them/someone else while masturbating, that is sexual harassment. If I have pictures on my wall and guests could see them, that's sexual harassment.
If I just have an encrypted folder, not a problem.
It's like the difference between thinking someone is ugly and saying it.
Lemmy rolls worst comment section, asked to leave the Fediverse