Thanks ahead of time for your feedback
It’s only a big deal because of puritan society like in the US or UK or similar in the first place. There are societies where nudity is not a big deal anyway, so nude photos of someone are also no big deal.
Look at Germany for example. Lots of FKK (nude) areas. No one really bats an eye. Of course there nudity is also not perfectly normalized, especially in some circles. But still, not many are concerned about nude pictures of themselves.
Obviously AI makes more nude pictures faster than someone skilled at Photoshop. So if your society has a problem with nudity, there will be more problems than before.
But really, there shouldn’t be a problem anyway.
Look at Germany for example. Lots of FKK (nude) areas. No one really bats an eye.
We still don’t appreciate our nudes posted online, fake or not.
Of course there nudity is also not perfectly normalized, especially in some circles.
Also obviously because of privacy reasons people don’t like their pictures posted online, nude or not.
They’re not even actual nudes - they’re fake. It seems to me to be no different than putting someone’s head on a Big Bird photo.
That said, nobody gets to decide what’s offensive to other people. Just do as they ask and don’t do the fake nudes. It’s not like there’s a shortage of porn done by willing adults.
I’m not saying people should do it. I’m just talking about a fundamental principle to keep yourself happy: to not be hurt by what other people are doing. In the end, you can’t control what other people will do. But you can control your reaction to what they do.
Of course, everyone is also allowed to disagree with this advice. I’m just sharing what works for me. If someone wants to feel bad/offended about someone making a fake nude of them, I don’t want to stop anyone doing that (and I can’t).
I sorta feel this way. Before that people would make cutout mashups or artistic types might depict something. I do get that its getting so real folks may things the people actually did the thing.
Doctored photos have always been a problem and, legally speaking, could lead to the faker being sued for defamation, depending on what was done with the person’s image.
AI Photos are only part of the problem. Faking the voice is also possible, as is making “good enough” videos where you just change the head of the actual performer.
Another part of the problem is that this kind of stuff spreads like wildfire within groups (and it’s ALWAYS groups where the victim is) and any voices stating that it’s fake will be drowned by everyone else.
Well, I think everyone has already covered that it was a big deal at the time, it simply wasn’t something we could wipe out as a society.
And it’s still a big deal.
However, I don’t think anyone touched on why fake nudes, even ones that are obviously fake, or even labeled as fake by the creator are a problem.
It comes back to the entire idea of consent. That’s for anyone, but women in particular are heavily sexualized, even well before they’re women. There is a constant, unending pressure on women of knowing that they are going to be sexually objectified. It might not be every day, by everyone alive around them, but it is inescapable.
One can debate whether or not nudity should be a big deal, whether or not it is sexualized because of the rules a given culture has around nudity, but the hard truth is that nudity is sexualized. Ergo, images of a woman’s body is something that they deserve to have control over access to. If someone consents to images being available, great! If they don’t, then there’s a problem.
Fakes, even obvious and declared fakes, violate that barrier of body autonomy. They directly ignore the person’s wishes regarding their naked body.
The better the fake, the worse that violation is, because (as others said), once a fake is good enough, the subject of the fake is put in the position of having to deny it’s them. They shouldn’t have to ever be in that position, no matter who it is.
Even a porn performer should have the ability to be free of fakes because they didn’t consent to those fakes. They also have a very valid claim on it infringing on their income as well. Now, I’m certain that legal fakes will someday be a thing. There will be contracts for likeness rights to produce fake porn. Bet on it. If I had free income, I would immediately invest in such an endeavor because I guarantee it will make money.
But, as things stand, fakes are no better than someone taking a picture through a window shade, or using infrared to sneak by clothing. It’s digital, and it’s fake, but it is the direct equivalent of violating someone’s privacy and body autonomy.
That’s why it’s a big deal to begin with.
And, yeah, it is something that’s here to stay, it’s unavoidable. And someone is bound to comment that they wouldn’t care. Great, good for you. That doesn’t obligate others to not care too. But, put it to the test and provide a few pictures of yourself in your comment so that someone can make a fake nude of you, then plaster it online with zero context and labeled with at least your user name so everyone running across it can direct responses to it to you.
It’s all about personal privacy, consent, and body autonomy.
It was a big deal back then, too, but a lot harder to police, and a lot more obvious that they were fakes.
Gillian Anderson fakes were real fuckin popular during the time the X-Files were on the air.
EDIT: Searching for women from the time talking about the phenomenon in the 90’s is difficult because it mostly turns up… troves of fake nudes of these women. Of course.
Did any women or men fight back from having nudes of them on the new like Swift did?
Yes plenty. Natalie Portman fakes were a big deal
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2007-07/26/content_6002664.htm
Did she ever unleash her wrath like the article says…Maybe the nerd in me but never wanted to see her naked just want to see her in a Princessesque Liae outfit. IYKYK
I recall women heavily disliking it back then, but I also recall that people in general viewed the internet as just full of weirdos and creeps. Internet wasn’t mainstream, by any stretch of the imagination, so I think it likely “got swept under the rug” because of a general feeling of “who cares what weirdos do online? We’re real people and we never use the internet because we have lives.”
Also, fewer lawyers understood the tech at the time, or how to figure out who was producing these images, and how to prosecute them. So I’d wager that part of going after them was held back by tech-unsavvy lawyers who were like “What’s happening where and how? Dowhatnow? Can you FAX it to me?”
-
easy for anyone to do it
-
easy to do it at scale
-
Because previously if someone had the skills to get rich off the skill making convincing fake nudes we could arrest and punish them - people with similar skillsets would usually prefer more legitimate work.
Now some ass in his basement can crank them out and it’s a futile game of whack-a-mole to kill them dead.
it’s a futile game of whack-a-mole
It’s still going to be futile even with this law in place. Society is going to have to get used to the fact that photo-realistic images aren’t evidence of anything (especially since the technology will keep improving).
It blows my mind when I think about where we might be headed with this tech. We’ve gotten SO used to the ability to communicate instantly with people far away in the technology age, how will we adapt when we have to go back 300 years and can only trust something someone tells us in person. Will we go back to local newspapers? Or can we not even trust that? Will we have public amphitheaters in busy parts of town, where people will around the news? And we can only trust these people, who have a direct chain of acquaintance all the way back to the source of the information? That seems extreme, but I dunno.
I think most likely we won’t implement extreme measures like that, to ensure we’re still getting genuine information. I think most likely we’ll just slip into completely generated false news from every source, no longer have any idea what’s really going on, but be convinced this AI thing was overblown, and have no idea we’re being controlled.
I don’t think it will be quite that bad. Society worked before photography was invented and now we have cryptographic ways to make sure you’re really talking to the person you think you’re talking to.
Truuue, I hadn’t thought of that. Okay, at least it won’t be as bad as I feared.
Now I just have to sell all these vintage printing presses I bought…
If it’s a game of whack-your-hog, however, deepfakes aren’t futile at all.
Because now teenagers can do it with very little effort whereas before it at least required a lot of time and skill
i think its ‘barrier to entry’
photoshop took skills that not everyone has/had keeping the volume low.
these new generators require zero skill or technical ability so anyone can do it
It would also take a lot more effort to get something even remotely believable. You would need to go through thousands of body and face photos to get a decent match and then put in some effort pairing the two photos together. A decent “nude” photo of a celebrity would probably take at least a day to make the first one.
Have you tried to get consistent goal orientated results from these ai tools.
To reliably generate a person you need to configure many components, fiddle with the prompts and constantly tweak.
To do this well in my eyes is a fair bit harder than learning how to use the magic wand in Photoshop.
You could also just find the promps online and paste them in.
I mean, inpainting isn’t particularly hard to make use of. There are also tools specifically for the purpose of generating “deepfake” nudes. The barrier for entry is much, much lower.
It is honestly kind of horrifying how much shrugging I’m seeing on this post over this issue
imho, not dissimilar to model planes>drones.
To operate a model plane, there was a not-small amount of effort you needed to work through (building, specialist components, local club, access to a proper field, etc.).
This meant that by the time you were flying, you probably had a pretty good understanding of being responsible with the new skill.In the era of self-stabilising GPS guided UAVs delivered next-day ready-to-fly, the barrier to entry flew down.
And it took a little while for the legislation to catch up from “the clubs are usually sensible” to “don’t fly a 2KG drone over a crowd of people at head height with no experience or training”When Photoshop first appeared, image manipulations that would seem obvious and amateurish by today’s standards were considered very convincing—the level of skill needed to fool large numbers of people increased as people became more familiar with the technology. I suspect the same process will play out with AI images—in a few years people will be much more experienced at spotting them, and making a convincing fake will take as much effort as it now does in Photoshop.
Nope, the ai will continue to get better, and soon spotting the fakes will be nearly impossible.
so anyone can do it
so anyone can do it and the victim can be your neighbor next door, not some celebrity, where you can internally normalize it with “well, it is a price of fame”
unfortunately, this list is only going to grow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicides_attributed_to_bullying
Ehhhh, I like to think that eventually society will adapt to this. When everyone has nudes, nobody has nudes.
You might think so, but I don’t hold as much hope.
Not with the rise of holier than thou moral crusaders who try to slutshame anyone who shows any amount of skin.
I like to be optimistic, eventually such crusaders will have such tools turned against them and that will be that. Even they will begin doubting whether any nudes are real.
Still, I’m not so naive that I think it can’t turn any other way. They might just do that thing they do with abortions, that is the line of reasoning that goes: “the only acceptable abortion is my abortion”, now changed to “the only fake nudes, are my nudes”
Unfortunately, I doubt it will be everyone. It will primarily be young women, because we hyper-sexualize those…
So it’s perfectly ok as long as you’re cool?
Scale also, you can create nudes of everyone on Earth in a fraction of the time it would take with Photoshop. All for the lowly cost of electricity.
I mean its as easy as cut and paste.
I guess it’s that easy if your goal is to be propped up as a “we have ____ at home” meme or something
What if my goal is to constantly be led around by media every decade to fear things needlessly when when they use the same lazy appeals every decade.
The right have immigrant headlines. The left seem to hate AI and technology now.
What’s mind blowing is how the same headline are used for both.
How do you prove it’s not you in either case? Photoshop doesn’t make a whole video of you fucking a sheep. But AI can and is actively being used that way. With Photoshop it was a matter of getting ahold of the file and inspecting it. Even the best Photoshop jobs have some key tells. Artifacting, layering, all kinds of shading and lighting, how big the file is, etc.
A lifetime full of accomplishments and nobody recalls or gives you a pat on the back…
…but you get deepfaked fucking ONE sheep and no one ever forgets.
Hey, it surely was an accident…
https://jokesoftheday.com/some-things-you-just-cant-explain/
AI is much better. Photoshop was always a little off with size, angle, lighting, etc. Very easy to spot fakes.
Not that I watch the morons but how come it seems that the Kardashians are so fond of it?
I know nothing about the Kardashians.
Neither do I just that I see headlines of like photoshop fails when the publish pictures and it is really obvious.
Honestly? It was kind of shitty back then and is just as shitty nowadays.
I mean, I get why people do it. But in my honest opinion, it’s still a blatant violation of that person’s dignity, at least if it’s distributed.
It’s not that now it’s bad… it’s that now it’s actually being addressed. Whereas before it was just something people would sweep under the rug as being distasteful, but not worthy of attention.
It was easier to ignore when teenagers couldn’t produce convincing images of their classmates with about 5min of research and a mediocre piece of software, then plaster it all over their friend groups or - god forbid - online forums/social media.
In addition the the reduced skill barriers mentioned, the other side effect is the reduced time spent finding a matching photo and actually doing the work. Anyone can create it in their spare time, quickly and easily.
It’s always been a big deal, it just died down as Photoshop as a tool became normalized and people became accustomed to it as a tool.
I got a few comments pointing this out. But media is hell bent on convincing people to hate AI tools and advancements. Why? I don’t know.
Tin foil hate is that it can be an equalizer. Powerful people that own media like to keep power tools to themselves and want the regular folk to fear and regulate ourselves from using it.
Like could you imagine if common folk rode dragons in GOT. Absolutely disgusting. People need to fear them and only certain people can use it.
Same idea. If you’re skeptical, go look up all the headlines about AI in the past year and compare them to right wing media’s headlines about immigration. They’re practically identical.
“Think of the women and children.”
“They’re TAKING OUR JOBS”
“Lot of turds showing up on beaches lately”
“What if they kill us”
“THEY’RE STEALING OUR RESOURCES”
You’re looking for a cat’s fifth leg. There is no conspiracy. It’s just new technology and what’s new is scary, specially big leaps, which this new age of machine learning seems to be part of.
