this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
341 points (93.4% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3199 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Telegram user who advertises their services on Twitter will create an AI-generated pornographic image of anyone in the world for as little as $10 if users send them pictures of that person. Like many other Telegram communities and users producing nonconsensual AI-generated sexual images, this user creates fake nude images of celebrities, including images of minors in swimsuits, but is particularly notable because it plainly and openly shows one of the most severe harms of generative AI tools: easily creating nonconsensual pornography of ordinary people.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] guyrocket@kbin.social 86 points 7 months ago (10 children)

This is not new. People have been Photoshopping this kind of thing since before there was Photoshop. Why "AI" being involved matters is beyond me. The result is the same: fake porn/nudes.

And all the hand wringing in the world about it being non consensual will not stop it. The cat has been out of the bag for a long time.

I think we all need to shift to not believing what we see. It is counterintuitive, but also the new normal.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 104 points 7 months ago (5 children)

People have been Photoshopping this kind of thing since before there was Photoshop. Why "AI" being involved matters is beyond me

Because now it's faster, can be generated in bulk and requires no skill from the person doing it.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I blame electricity. Before computers, people had to learn to paint to do this. We should go back to living like medieval peasants.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 13 points 7 months ago

Those were the days...

[–] KISSmyOS@feddit.de 1 points 7 months ago

This, but unironically.

[–] nednobbins@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

As much skill as a 9 year old and a 16 year old can muster?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies

[–] Vespair@lemm.ee -2 points 7 months ago

no skill from the person doing it.

This feels entirely non-sequitur, to the point of damaging any point you're trying to make. Whether I paint a nude or the modern Leonardi DaVinci paints a nude our rights (and/or the rights of the model, depending on your perspective on this issue) should be no different, despite the enormous chasm that exists between our artistic skill.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 58 points 7 months ago (6 children)

I hate this: "Just accept it women of the world, accept the abuse because it's the new normal" techbro logic so much. It's absolutely hateful towards women.

We have legal and justice systems to deal with this. It is not the new normal for me to be able to make porn of your sister, or mother, or daughter. Absolutely fucking abhorrent.

[–] AquaTofana@lemmy.world 50 points 7 months ago

I don't know why you're being down voted. Sure, it's unfortunately been happening for a while, but we're just supposed to keep quiet about it and let it go?

I'm sorry, putting my face on a naked body that's not mine is one thing, but I really do fear for the people whose likeness gets used in some degrading/depraved porn and it's actually believable because it's AI generated. That is SO much worse/psychologically damaging if they find out about it.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago

It’s unacceptable.

We have legal and justice systems to deal with this.

For reference, here’s how we’re doing with child porn. Platforms with problems include (copying from my comment two months ago):

Ill adults and poor kids generate and sell CSAM. Common to advertise on IG, sell on TG. Huge problem as that Stanford report shows.

Telegram got right on it (not). Fuckers.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How do you propose to deal with someone doing this on their computer, not posting them online, for their "enjoyment"? Mass global surveillance of all existing devices?

It's not a matter of willingly accepting it; it's a matter of looking at what can be done and what can not. Publishing fake porn, defaming people, and other similar actions are already (I hope… I am not a lawyer) illegal. Asking for the technology that exists, is available, will continue to grow, and can be used in a private setting with no witness to somehow "stop" because of a law is at best wishful thinking.

[–] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

There's nothing to be done, nor should be done, for anything someone individually creates, for their own individual use, never to see the light of day. Anything else is about one step removed from thought policing - afterall what's the difference between a personally created, private image and the thoughts on your brain?

The other side of that is, we have to have protection for people who this has or will be used against. Strict laws regarding posting or sharing material. Easy and fast removal of abusive material. Actual enforcement. I know we have these things in place already, but they need to be stronger and more robust. The one absolute truth with generative AI, versus Photoshop etc is that it's significantly faster and easier, thus there will likely be an uptick in this kind of material, thus the need for re-examining current laws.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Because gay porn is a myth I guess...

[–] Jrockwar@feddit.uk 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

And so is straight male-focused porn. We men seemingly are not attractive, other than for perfume ads. It's unbelievable gender roles are still so strongly coded in 20204. Women must be pretty, men must buy products where women look pretty in ads. Men don't look pretty and women don't buy products - they clean the house and care for the kids.

I'm aware of how much I'm extrapolating, but a lot of this is the subtext under "they'll make porn of your sisters and daughters" but leaving out of the thought train your good looking brother/son, when that'd be just as hurtful for them and yourself.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

Or your bad looking brother or the bad looking myself.

Imo people making ai fakes for themselves isn't the end of the world but the real problem is in distribution and blackmail.

You can get blackmailed no matter your gender and it will happen to both genders.

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not normal but neither is new: you already could cut and glue your cousin's photo on a Playboy girl, or Photoshop the hot neighbour on Stallone's muscle body. Today is just easier.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

I don't care if it's not new, no one cares about how new it is.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social -2 points 7 months ago

typical morning for me.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I suck at Photoshop and Ive tried many times to get good at it over the years. I was able to train a local stable diffusion model on my and my family's faces and create numerous images of us in all kinds of situations in 2 nights of work. You can get a snap of someone and have nudes of them tomorrow for super cheap.

I agree there is nothing to be done, but it's painfully obvious to me that the scale and ease of it that makes it much more concerning.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Also the potential for automation/mass-production. Photoshop work still requires a person to sit down to do the actual photoshop. You can try to script things out, but it's hardly an easy affair.

By comparison, generative models are much more hands-free. Once you get the basics set up, you can just have it go, and churn things at rates well surpassing what a single human could reasonably do (if you have the computing power for it).

[–] Assman@sh.itjust.works 13 points 7 months ago

The same reason AR15 rifles are different than muskets

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 months ago

This kind of attitude toward non-consensual actions is what perpetuates them. Fuck that shit.

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago
[–] dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Exactly this. And rather believe cryptographically sighed images by comparing hashes with the one supplied by the owner. Then it's rather a question of trusting a specific source for a specific kind of content. A news photo of the war in Ukraine by the BBC? Check hash on their site. Their reputation is fini if a false image has been found.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

At the same time, that does introduce an additional layer of work. Most people aren't going to do that just for the extra work that it would involve, in much the same way that people today won't track down an image back down to the original source, but usually just go by the one that they saw.

Especially for people who aren't so cryptographically or technologically inclined that they know what a hash is, where to find one, and how to compare it (without just opening them both and checking personally).

[–] dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 months ago

Sure but that's no problem if software would do that automatically for users of big (news) sites. Browsers on desktop and apps on phones.

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.social 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The irony of parroting this mindless and empty talking point is probably lost on you.

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

God, do I really have to start putting the /jk or /s back, for those who don't get it like you??

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] SharkAttak@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Okay, okay, you won. Happy now? Now go.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago
[–] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Why "AI" being involved matters is beyond me.

The AI hysteria is real, and clickbait is money.