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.
In previous generations the kid making fake porn of their classmates was not a well liked kid. Is that reversed now? On the basis of quality of tech?
That kid that doodles is creepy. But deep fakes probably feel a lot closer to actual nudes.
Oooh that’s bad. Yeah I would never do that but I did hear about the idea floating around back in the day, though I don’t think the tech is there yet. It’s just generally not cool
The tech is there. That’s the point of this article
Yeah it sucks bro, but honestly I feel like it just means more people can just chat about porno and have a laugh, and honestly be coy, rather than play
I studied Computer Science so I know that the only way to teach an AI agent to stop drawing naked girls is to… give it pictures of naked girls so it can learn what not to draw :(
hmmm - I wonder it makes sense to use generative AI to create negative training data for things like CP. That would essentially be a victimless way to train the AIs. Of course, that creates the conundrum of who actually verifies the AI-generated training data…
this doesn’t work. AI still needs to know what is CP in order to create CP for negative use. So you need to first feed it with CP. Recent example of how OpenAI was labelling “bad text”
The premise was simple: feed an AI with labeled examples of violence, hate speech, and sexual abuse, and that tool could learn to detect those forms of toxicity in the wild. That detector would be built into ChatGPT to check whether it was echoing the toxicity of its training data, and filter it out before it ever reached the user. It could also help scrub toxic text from the training datasets of future AI models.
To get those labels, OpenAI sent tens of thousands of snippets of text to an outsourcing firm in Kenya, beginning in November 2021. Much of that text appeared to have been pulled from the darkest recesses of the internet. Some of it described situations in graphic detail like child sexual abuse, bestiality, murder, suicide, torture, self harm, and incest.
source: https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
In the end you can’t stop it anymore than you can stop teen boys from wanking. Eventually there will just be fake nudes of everyone so it will have no meaning. It sucks, but it is how it is. Maybe people should get out in front of it by generating there own deep fakes of themsleves, but embellish them some so they have an obvious fakeness and age them up to legal age or something.
Does it suck? A future where people have gotten over feeling ashamed of having bodies sounds pretty cool.
Not if it comes with normalising the behaviours these boys are showing.
If nudity wasn’t a big deal, it wouldn’t even occur to them to harass girls with fake nudes, and nobody would care if they tried.
They could still do it for self-gratification. And the problem in that is objectifying other people.
Regardless of whether or not they would still do it when nudity was something humans didn’t have emotions over, it would still be wrongdoing against another person. That’s the problem that has to be tackled.
I don’t think it’s less realistic than removing emotions about nudity in people.
I’m saying it would be like distributing photos of their hands. Just not a big deal to anyone.
And there are certainly examples of cultures where nudity isn’t considered a big deal at all, so it’s not like I’m suggesting something farfetched or contrary to human nature. The ancient Greeks for one example, or Northern Europeans any time they go to a bath house or sauna. In ancient Egypt children under 6 didn’t wear clothes at all in warm weather. I recall seeing a documentary as a kid about an Amazon tribe where nobody wore clothes.
President Joe Biden signed an executive order in October that, among other things, called for barring the use of generative AI to produce child sexual abuse material or non-consensual “intimate imagery of real individuals.” The order also directs the federal government to issue guidance to label and watermark AI-generated content to help differentiate between authentic and material made by software.
Step in the right direction, I guess.
How is the government going to be able to differentiate authentic images/videos from AI generated ones? Some of the AI images are getting super realistic, to the point where it’s difficult for human eyes to tell the difference.
I wouldn’t call this a step in the tight direction. A call for a step yeah, but it’s not actually a step until something is actually done
That’s a cool quiz, and it’s from 2022. I’m sure AI has improved since then. Would love to see an updated version.
Sounds like an easy fix, treat it as revenge porn and CEM and prosecute it exactly the same.
Little Timmy’s gonna think twice about distributing stable diffusions of the cheerleaders after he sees mikey’s life get ruined for that shit
I don’t think kids think about consequences in this way. Also not sure if charging a 12 year old as a paedophile is the right move.
Mind clarifying
I’m not certain but I think in my jurisdiction I think distribution of CSM is the more likely charge than revenge porn.
For a 40 year old, spending 10 years in jail and the rest of your life on the sex offenders registry would be a deterrent of some kind. I ought not to do x because I don’t want to bear consequence y.
For a 12 year old, even if they understand that some behaviors have very deleterious consequences, they have no way to weigh those consequences. How long is 10 years? Would this be a bit like being sent to my room? What is a registry? Making these pictures on the computer is illegal, downloading torrents is illegal, dad downloads torrents all the time.
I’m just saying that if the objective is to avoid the harm of victims, then heavy punishments are unlikely to achieve that.
How about we don’t destroy a kids life for something that isn’t against the law yet. Why can’t we write the laws first then go after them. Give the kid a chance.
Um, what about the lives of the victims??
The kid is spreading kiddy porn and revenge porn
Little twerp deserves it and he don’t deserve it any less just because he’s younger than all the other sex offenders who deserved it.
You’re getting downvoted but juvenile detention exists for a reason. All these people out here thinking children don’t understand that laws apply to them should be wondering why kids aren’t murdering each other or committing theft daily
And they are out by 18, they do get less than when adults commit the same crime.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished
They’re focusing on the kid aspect because that’s easier to fight in their eyes than the revenge porn angle, which I’m just gonna assume they’ve all gone and done
Yeah they need to change the law to treat it the same as a real photo being distributed essentially. As the damage is very similar.
How many ‘boys will be boys’ second chances do you feel girls and women owe before they can start making laws about this and punishing the guys responsible?
I dont really think its a “boys will be boys” issue, and more that i dont think any child deserves to have their entire life ruined for something so early in their life. While i dont disagree that its very tramatic for the girls, and it is a really fucked up thing to do that should have no excuses for being acceptable, i feel there are better ways to tackle this issue than marking a 14 year old as a sexual predator or throwing them in jail barring them from a large portion of jobs, housing, etc. for the rest of their life.
But to be clear, i am a prison abolitionist in general, so take that as you will.
These girls are going to have their lives ruined because fake porn with their faces doesn’t disappear from the internet. This could follow them for the rest of their lives. Where is the justice for them?
I am in no way trying to downplay the hurt and pain something like that causes. As a dude, I don’t think I can ever really be able to know what that feels like, but I can recognize it and empathize with it. No one deserves to go through and live with something like that. It totally sucks, I agree.
However, what exactly is destroying another child’s life going to solve? Is it going to make that child stop doing the thing they were punished for? Maybe, but the US recidivism rates beg to differ (44% within the first year). So what then? Is it just to make us feel good, being happy to watch another person get hurt, justified by this made up concept of ‘justice’? That’s the more likely answer, IMO.
There are much more constructive ways to prevent this from happening again that doesn’t require marking a child as an “undesirable” for the rest of their life. I can’t necessarily point to what that might look like, maybe enforced counseling to try and teach someone like that why what they did caused so much harm.
Ultimately, what I am trying to say is that someone like this should be held accountable for their actions, but enforcing suffering from the state is not an effective or moral way to do it.
As a bi guy, it arguably goes both ways, I feel like if a woman wants to objectify a man she is free to, if a man so much as looks at a woman he’s automatically a creep, or potential “predator” meanwhile women in Saudi will get a good looking guy like Al Gala deported. Like what the hell right?!
Little Timmy’s gonna think twice
I appreciate your optimism , but I don’t share it.
Timmy is as likely to believe he is smarter than Mikey and that he won’t get caught…
Unfortunately, 14 year olds don’t have the level of mental development for future consequences to reliably dissuade them from current impulses. For that matter consider how many adults did crime despite knowing the consequences. This approach will only succeed in filling prison with more kids.
she should do a couple of him rawdogging it and pass it around
What’s the fundamental difference between a deep fake and a good Photoshop and why do we need more laws to regulate that?
Lower skill ceiling. One option can be done by pretty much anyone at a high volume output, the other would require a lot training and are not available for your average basement dweller.
Good luck trying to regulate it though, Pandora’s box is opened and you won’t be able to stop the FOSS community from working on the tech.
photoshop is almost entirely automated now. and has phone apps that take it even further.
Photoshop (if it does?) and any other believable face swap apps use some sort of neural networks, which is exactly the problematic tech we are talking about.
Fear.
The problem is how to actually prevent this. What could one do? Make AI systems illegal? Make graphics tools illegal? Make the Internet illegal? Make computers illegal?
By dishing out punishment that really hurts.
Severity of punishment works poorly. Inevitability, on the other hand…
I think in this case less mild punishment would send the appropriate signal that this isn’t just a little joke or a small misdemeanor.
There are still way too many people who believe sexual harassment etc. aren’t that huge of a deal. And I believe the fact that perpetrators so easily get away with it plays into this.
(I am not sure how it is in the US, in my country the consequence of crimes against bodily autonomy are laughable.)
Average American be like
Make anime illegal
I think the best way to combat this is to ostracize anyone who participates in it.
Let it be a litmus test to see who is and is not worth hanging out with.
These deepfakes don’t disappear. You can ostracize all you like, but that won’t stop these from potentially haunting girls for the rest of their lives.
I don’t know what the solution is, honestly.
The solution is for no one to care or make a big deal out of it, they’re not real so you shouldn’t care.
Welcome to society. First time?
The problem with that plan is there are too many horrible people in the world. They’ll just group up and keep going. Horrible people don’t stop over mere inconvenience.
Yeah. Those horrible people can have a shitty life surrounded by other horrible people.
Let them be horrible together and we can focus on the people who matter.
Just like Nazis won’t go away just because you ignore them, it’s the same thing here.
There might be an upside to all this, though maybe not for these girls: with enough of this people will eventually just stop believing any nude pictures “leaked” are real, which will be a great thing for people who had real nude pictures leaked - which, once on the Internet, are pretty hard to stop spreading - because other people will just presume they’re deepfakes.
Mind you, it would be a lot better if people in general culturally evolved beyond being preachy monkeys who pass judgment on others because they’ve been photographed in their birthday-suit, but that’s clearly asking too much so I guess simply people assuming all such things are deepfakes until proven otherwise is at least better than the status quo.
Photoshop is a 40yo tool and people still believe almost every picture.
Yes, but good Photoshop has a high skill ceiling. Generative AI does not.
Fair point.
I don’t know what a reasonable"protection" looks like here: the only thing foresee is 14 year old boys getting felonies, but no one being protected.
deleted by creator
no. the article mentions"protecting" people several times. I don’t see how anyone is protected by the proposed laws.
Right, there are plenty of reactive measures available but the only proactive measures are either restricting availability of the source photos used or restricting use of the deep fake tools used. Everything beyond that is trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Are we seriously going to try and use someone’s photos for dumb shit like this? Cone on, people just want something to wank to or someone to call over to have sex with, who the hell would actually do this?
Well evidently the answer to your last question is " some people". Your point would only make sense if all this was hypothetical
Both of those options seem impossible in practice.
And that’s the point I was making, nobody can be “protected” from widely available photos being used on widely available programs. Best we can do is deter but that isn’t a guarantee.
At some point, communities and social circles need to be able to moderate themselves.
Disseminating nudes of peers should be grounds for ostracizing, but it really depends on the quality of people around you.
That doesn’t work. It’s nothing but an inconvenience to not talk to your neighbors or those around you. They’d just get even worse and make even worse friends online.
Ostracization doesn’t work. Ever. Period. If they’re bad enough, banishment works. Ostracization is just literally ignoring the problem.
Ostracization doesn’t work. Ever. Period. If they’re bad enough, banishment works. Ostracization is just literally ignoring the problem.
That’s just wrong. Unless you’re hanging around shitty people, ignoring the bad ones by definition works.
A lot of social circles are dominated by either shitty people or by people too insecure to take a confronting attitude towards those shitty people.
It’s not possible to restrict deep fake technology at this point. It’s out there. Accessible to everyone who wants it and has a computer at home.
Even if you don’t want to consider it CSAM, it is, at the very least, sexual harassment. The kids making and circulating these pictures and videos should be facing consequences. And the fear of consequences does offer some degree of protection at least.
It looks like pretty severe sexual harassment at best. Unfortunately the people I think are most likely to do it are teenagers with poor self control who don’t realize the severity.
I think if schools can implement appropriate restorative responses and education on the harm done that could be much more effective than decaigan punishments after the fact.
Should a teenager face consequences for drawing a picture of their classmate naked? What if they do it well? How is this at all different?
If they distribute the drawing, yes. And the difference is that a drawing is immediately recognisable as a drawing, but an AI generated image or video isn’t necessarily easily recognisable as not being real, so the social consequences for the person depicted can be much worse.
AI legal matters are going to be krazy
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?
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.
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
Would it? How do they prove the age of an AI generated image?
Someone has to pay… this image is only 2 hours old…TWO HOURS OLD, YOU ANIMALS
By… checking the age of the person depicted in the image?
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.
…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?
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?
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
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
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.
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?
Won’t somebody think of the make believe computer generated cartoon children?!
Maybe it is just me, but its why I think this is a bigger issue than just Hollywood.
The rights to famous people’s “images” are bought and sold all the time.
I would argue that the entire concept should be made illegal. Others can only use your image with your explicit permission and your image cannot be “owned” by anyone but yourself.
The fact that making a law like this isn’t a priority means this will get worse because we already have a society and laws that don’t respect our rights to control of our own image.
A law like this would also remove all the questions about youth and sex and instead make it a case of misuse of someone else’s image. In this case it could even be considered defamation for altering the image to make it seem like it was real. They defamed her by making it seem like she took nude photos of herself to spread around.
That sounds pretty dystopian to me. Wouldn’t that make filming in public basically illegal?
In Germany it is illegal to make photos or videos of people who are identifieable (faces are seen or closeups) without asking for permission first. With exception of public events, as long as you do not focus on individuals. It doesn’t feel dystopian at all, to be honest. I’d rather have it that way than ending up on someone’s stupid vlog or whatever.
The tools used to make these images can largely be ignored, as can the vast majority of what AI creates of people. Fake nudes and photos have been possible for a long time now. The biggest way we deal with them is to go after large distributors of that content.
When it comes to younger people, the penalty should be pretty heavy for doing this. But it’s the same as distributing real images of people. Photos that you don’t own. I don’t see how this is any different or how we treat it any differently than that.
I agree with your defamation point. People in general and even young people should be able to go after bullies or these image distributors for damages.
I think this is a giant mess that is going to upturn a lot of what we think about society but the answer isn’t to ban the tools or to make it illegal to use the tools however you want. The solution is the same as the ones we’ve created, just with more sensitivity.
There are genuine reasons not to give people sole authority over their image though. “Oh that’s a picture of me genuinely doing something bad, you can’t publish that!”
Like, we still need to be able to have a public conversation about (especially political) public figures and their actions as photographed
Yeah I’m not stipulating a law where you can’t be held accountable for actions. Any actions you take as an individual are things you do that impact your image, of which you are in control. People using photographic evidence to prove you have done them is not a misuse of your image.
Making fake images whole cloth is.
The question of whether this technology will make such evidence untrustworthy is another conversation that sadly I don’t have enough time for right this moment.
Wait you thought this was a problem for Hollywood?
AI bad
Addendum, Closed Source AI.
Open source AI would be even worse.
According to what logic? Like I’m ever going to trust some lying asshole to hide his instructions for fucking anything that’s MINE. News Alert: “Your” computer ain’t yours.
People have been trying to circumvent chatGPT’s filters, they’ll do the exact same with open source AI. But it’ll be worse because it’s open source, so any built in feature to prevent abuse could just get removed then recompiled by whoever.
And that’s all even assuming there ever ends up being open source AI.
You’re logic is bass ackwards. Knowing the open source publicly means the shit gets fixed faster. Closed source just don’t get fixed %99 of the time because there’s only one mother fucker to do the fixing and usually just don’t do it.
You can’t fix it with open source. All it takes is one guy making a fork and removing the safeguards because they believe in free speech or something. You can’t have safeguards against misuse of a tool in an open source environment.
I agree that closed source AI is bad. But open source doesn’t magically solve the problem.
Forks are productive. Your’re just wrong about it. I’ll take FOSS over closed source. I’ll trust the masses reviewing FOSS over the one asshole doing, or rather not doing, exactly that.
