Lawmakers are grappling with how to address ...
Just a reminder that the government is actively voting against regulations on AI, because obviously a lot of these people are pocketing lobbyist money
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
378 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
73071 readers
2566 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
A 99-1 vote to drop the anti AI regulation is hardly the government voting against. The Senate smashed that shit hard and fast.
Expecting people to know about that 99-1 vote might be misplaced optimism, since it hasn't been made into a meme yet.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Even in countries a lot less corrupt than the US this is an issue.
Especially because the US government/companies doesn't do jack shit for people
load more comments
(2 replies)
For example, Louisiana mandates a minimum five-year jail sentence no matter the age of the perpetrator.
That's just on it's face stupid. A thirteen year old boy is absolutely gonna wanna see girls in his age group naked. That's not pedophilia. It's wanting to see the girls he fantasizes about at school every day. Source: I was a thirteen year old boy.
It shouldn't be treated the same as when an adult man generates it; there should be nuance. I'm not saying it's ok for a thirteen year old to generate said content: I'm saying tailor the punishment to fit the reality of the differences in motivations. Leave it to Louisiana to once again use a cudgel rather than sense.
I'm so glad I went through puberty at a time when this kind of shit wasn't available. The thirteen year old version of me would absolutely have got myself in a lot of trouble. And depending on what state I was in, seventeen year old me could have ended listed as a sex predetor for sending dick pics to my gf cause I produced child pornography. God, some states have stupid laws.
In general, even up here in woke-ville, punishments have gotten a lot more strict for kids. There’s a lot more involvement of police, courts, jail. As a parent it causes me a lot of anxiety - whatever happened to school being a “sandbox” where a kid can make mistakes without adult consequences, without ruining their lives? Did that ever exist?
load more comments
(2 replies)
As a father of teenage girls, I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment, but I would personally see to it that anyone making sexual deepfakes of my daughters is equitably and thoroughly punished.
There is a difference between ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse and no expectations.
Vs scaring the shit out of them and making them work their ass off doing an ass load of community service for a summer.
ruining the life of a 13 year old boy for the rest of his life with no recourse
And what about the life of the girl this boy would have ruined?
This is not "boys will be boys" shit. Girls have killed themselves over this kind of thing (I have personal experience with suicidal teenage girls, both as a past friend and as a father).
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an equivalent punishment that has the potential to ruin his life.
Fake pictures do not ruin your life… sorry…
Our puritanical / 100% sex culture is the problem, not fake pictures…
It is not abnormal to see different punishment for people under the age of 18. Good education about sex and what sexual assault does with their victims (same with guns, drugs including alcohol etc).
You can still course correct the behaviour of a 13 year old. There is also a difference between generating the porn and abusing it by sharing it etc.
The girls should be helped and the boys should be punished, but mainly their behaviour needs to be correcte
load more comments
(6 replies)
Yes, absolutely. But with recognition that a thirteen year old kid isn't a predator but a horny little kid. I'll let others determine what that punishment is, but I don't believe it's prison. Community service maybe. Written apology. Stuff like that. Second offense, ok, we're ratcheting up the punishment, but still not adult prison.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Punishment for an adult man doing this: Prison
Punishment for a 13 year old by doing this: Publish his browsing and search history in the school newsletter.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Honestly I think we need to understand that this is no different to sticking a photo of someone's head on a porn magazine photo. It's not real. It's just less janky.
I would categorise it as sexual harassment, not abuse. Still serious, but a different level
Schools generally means it involves underage individuals, which makes any content using them csam. So in effect, the "AI" companies are generating a ton of csam and nobody is doing anything about it.
Do deepfake explicit images created from a non-explicit image actually qualify as CSAM?
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
Yes, finding out that your peers have been sharing deep fake pornography of you is absolutely fine and a normal thing for young girls to go through in school. No girls have ever killed themselves because of this exact sort of thing, surely. This definitely will not add in any way to the way women and girls are made to feel entirely disgustingly dehumanized by every man or boy in their lives. Groups of men and boys reducing them and their bodies down to vivid sexual fantasies that they can quickly generate photo realistic images of.
If the person in the image is underaged then it should be classified as child pornography. If the woman who's photo is being used hasnt consented to this then it should be classified as sexual exploitation.
Women and girls have faced degrees of this kind of sexual exploitation by men and boys since the latter half of the 20th century. But this is a severe escalation in that behavior. It should be illegal to do this and it should be prosecuted when and where it is found to occur.
It's bullying with a sexual element. The fact that it uses AI or deepfakes is secondary, just as it was secondary when it was photoshop, just as it was secondary when it was cutting out photos. It's always about using it bully someone.
This is different because it's easier. It's not really different because it (can be) more realistic, because it was never about being realistic, otherwise blatantly unrealistic images wouldn't have been used to do it. Indeed, the fact that it can be realistic will help blunt the impact of the leaking of real nudes.
load more comments
(26 replies)
load more comments
(17 replies)
I hope it might lead to a situation of dirty pics/vids not being a problem for the people in it any more, as it could be a deepfake. Like there were cases where a surfacing dirty pic was used for blackmail, ruined someones career or got them kicked out of some comittee, but since it could be fabrication now, I hope this will beva thing of the past, soon.
That could be a socially healthy place to end up at. I don't see it anytime soon though. Just look at the other response I got.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
probably because there's a rapist in the white house.
To add to that. I live in a red area and since the election I’ve been cat called much more. And it’s weird too, cus I’m middle aged…. I thought I’d finally disappear…
the toxic manosphere/blogosphere/whatever it's called has done so much lifelong damage
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’m sure the laws will focus on protecting IP - specifically that of AI companies or megacorps, the famous and powerful, but not the small creators of content or the rabble negatively affected by AI abuse.
The rest of us will have to suffer through presenting whatever damaging and humiliating video to a court. If you can even afford a lawyer to do so. Then be offered a judgement that probably won’t be paid or won’t cover the damage done by an image that will never be able to be erased from the internet. Those damages could include the suicide of young people bullied and humiliated by such deepfakes.
So is this a way to take away rights by making it about kids?
I mean what the fuck. We did much less and got punished right? It didn't matter if we were on the property. Schools can hold students accountable for conduct with other students.
The leaded-gas adults of the time had no problem dealing with the emergence of cell phones. It was a distraction. They didn't need lawmakers to call it something specific. My Pokemon cards caused fights and were banned. No lawmakers needed.
The problem is surely with the interaction between parents and schools. Or maybe it's just the old way of thinking. Maybe it's better to have police and courts start taking over discipline in schools.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Welp, if I had kids they would have one of those scramble suits like in a scanner darkly.
It would of course be their choice to wear them but Id definitely look for ways to limit their time in areas with cameras present.
That's just called the outside now. Assume you are on camera at all times the moment you step out the front door. To be safe in the surveillance we live in today, best act as though you are being recorded in your own home as well.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Maybe let's assume all digital images are fake and go back to painting. Wait... what if children start painting deepfakes ?
load more comments
(1 replies)
My mama always told me, that if someone makes a deepfake of you, then you make a deepfake of them right back!
load more comments
(5 replies)
Jfc the replies here are fucking rancid. Lemmy is full of sweaty middle aged blokes in tech who hate it when anyone tells them that grown men who pursue teenage girls who have just reached an arbitrary age are fucking creeps, so of course they're here encouraging the next generation of misogynist scum by defending this shit, too.
And men (pretend to) wonder why we distrust them.
Ngl, I'm only leaving reply notifs on for this one to work on my blocklist.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't understand fully how this technology works, but, if people are using it to create sexual content of underage individuals, doesn't that mean the LLM would need to have been trained on sexual content of underage individuals? Seems like going after the company and whatever it's source material is would be the obvious choice here
I agree with the other comments, but wanted to add how deepfakes work to show how simple they are, and how much less information they need than LLMs.
Step 1: Basically you take a bunch of photos and videos of a specific person, and blur their faces out.
Step 2: This is the hardest step, but still totally feasable for a decent home computer. You train a neural network to un-blur all the faces for that person. Now you have a neural net that's really good at turning blurry faces into that particular person's face.
Step 3: Blur the faces in photos/videos of other people and apply your special neural network. It will turn all the blurry faces into the only face it knows how, often with shockingly realistic results.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›