- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
“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.
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.
How can anyone make money off porn if users simply create their own?
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.
It’s all so incredibly gross. Using “AI” to undress someone you know is extremely fucked up. Please don’t do that.
Can you articulate why, if it is for private consumption?
Consent.
You might be fine with having erotic materials made of your likeness, and maybe even of your partners, parents, and children. But shouldn’t they have right not to be objectified as wank material?
I partly agree with you though, it’s interesting that making an image is so much more troubling than having a fantasy of them. My thinking is that it is external, real, and thus more permanent even if it wouldn’t be saved, lost, hacked, sold, used for defamation and/or just shared.
it is external, real, and thus more permanent
Though just like your thoughts, the AI is imagining the nude parts aswell because it doesn’t actually know what they look like. So it’s not actually a nude picture of the person. It’s that person’s face on a entirely fictional body.
But the issue is not with the AI tool, it’s with the human wielding it for their own purposes which we find questionable.
To add to this:
Imagine someone would sneak into your home and steal your shoes, socks and underwear just to get off on that or give it to someone who does.
Wouldn’t that feel wrong? Wouldn’t you feel violated? It’s the same with such AI porn tools. You serve to satisfy the sexual desires of someone else and you are given no choice. Whether you want it or not, you are becoming part of their act. Becoming an unwilling participant in such a way can feel similarly violating.
They are painting and using a picture of you, which is not as you would like to represent yourself. You don’t have control over this and thus, feel violated.
This reminds me of that fetish, where one person is basically acting like a submissive pet and gets treated like one by their “master”. They get aroused by doing that in public, one walking with the other on a leash like a dog on hands and knees. People around them become passive participants of that spectactle. And those often feel violated. Becoming unwillingly, unasked a participant, either active or passive, in the sexual act of someone else and having no or not much control over it, feels wrong and violating for a lot of people.
In principle that even shares some similarities to rape.There are countries where you can’t just take pictures of someone without asking them beforehand. Also there are certain rules on how such a picture can be used. Those countries acknowledge and protect the individual’s right to their image.
Traumatizing rape victims with non consentual imagery of them naked and doing sexual things with others and sharing it is totally not going yo fuck up the society even more and lead to a bunch of suicides! /s
Ai is the future. The future is dark.
tbf, the past and present are pretty dark as well
That’s why we need strong legislation. Most countries wordlwide are missing crucial time frames for making such laws. At least some are catching up, like the EU did recently with their first AI act.
Just to play devils advocate here, in both of these scenarios:
Imagine someone would sneak into your home and steal your shoes, socks and underwear just to get off on that or give it to someone who does.
This reminds me of that fetish, where one person is basically acting like a submissive pet and gets treated like one by their “master”. They get aroused by doing that in public, one walking with the other on a leash like a dog on hands and knees. People around them become passive participants of that spectactle. And those often feel violated.
The person has the knowledge that this is going on. In he situation with AI nudes, the actual person may never find out.
Again, not to defend this at all, I think it’s creepy af. But I don’t think your arguments were particularly strong in supporting the AI nudes issue.
In every chat I find about this, I see people railing against AI tools like this but I have yet to hear an argument that makes much sense to me about it. I don’t care much either way but I want a grounded position.
I care about harms to people and in general, people should be free to do what they want until it begins harming someone. And then we get to have a nuanced conversation about it.
I’ve come up with a hypothetical. Let’s say that you write naughty stuff about someone in your diary. The diary is kept in a secure place and in private. Then, a burglar breaks in and steals your diary and mails that page to whomever you wrote it about. Are you, the writer, in the wrong?
My argument would be no. You are expressing a desire in private and only through the malice of someone else was the harm done. And no, being “creepy” isn’t an argument either. The consent thing I can maybe see but again do you have a right not to be fantasized about? Not to be written about in private?
I’m interested in people’s thoughts because this argument bugs me not to have a good answer for.
Yeah it’s an interesting problem.
If we go down the path of ideas in the mind and the representations we create and visualize in our mind’s eye, to forbid people from conceiving of others sexually means there really is no justification for conceiving of people generally.
If we try to seek for a justification, where is that line drawn? What is sexual, and what is general? How do we enforce this, or at least how do we catch people in the act and shame them into stopping their behavior, especially if we don’t possess the capability of telepathy?
What is harm? Is it purely physical, or also psychological? Is there a degree of harm that should be allowed, or that is inescapable despite our best intentions?
The angle that you point out regarding writing things down about people in private can also go different ways. I write things down about my friends because my memory sucks sometimes and I like to keep info in my back pocket for when birthdays, holidays, or special occasions come. What if I collected information about people that I don’t know? What if I studied academics who died in the past to learn about their lives, like Ben Franklin? What if I investigated my neighbors by pointing cameras at their houses, or installing network sniffers or other devices to try to collect information on them? Does the degree of familiarity with those people I collect information about matter, or is the act wrong in and of itself? And do my intentions justify my actions, or do the consequences of said actions justify them?
Obviously I think it’s a good thing that we as a society try to discourage collecting information on people who don’t want that information collected, but there is a portion of our society specifically allowed to do this: the state. What makes their status deserving of this power? Can this power be used for ill and good purposes? Is there a level of cross collection that can promote trust and collaboration between the state and its public, or even amongst the public itself? I would say that there is a level where if someone or some group knows enough about me, it gets creepy.
Anyways, lots of questions and no real answers! I’d be interested in learning more about this subject, and I apologize if I steered the convo away from sexual harassment and violation. Consent extends to all parts of our lives, but sexual consent does seem to be a bigger problem given the evidence of this post. Looking forward to learning more!
I think we’ve just stumbled on an issue where the rubber meets the road as far as our philosophies about privacy and consent. I view consent as important mostly in areas that pertain to bodily autonomy right? So we give people the rights to use our likeness for profit or promotion or distribution. And what we’re giving people is a mental permission slip to utilize the idea of the body or the body itself for specific purposes.
However, I don’t think that these things really pertain to private matters. Because the consent issue only applies when there are potential effects on the other person. Like if I talk about celebrities and say that imagining a celebrity sexually does no damage because you don’t know them, I think most people would agree. And so if what we care about is harm, there is no potential for harm.
With surveillance matters, the consent does matter because we view breaching privacy as potential harm. The reason it doesn’t apply to AI nudes is that privacy is not being breached. The photos aren’t real. So it’s just a fantasy of a breach of privacy.
So for instance if you do know the person and involve them sexually without their consent, that’s blatantly wrong. But if you imagine them, that doesn’t involve them at all. Is it wrong to create material imaginations of someone sexually? I’d argue it’s only wrong if there is potential for harm and since the tech is already here, I actually view that potential for harm as decreasing in a way. The same is true nonsexually. Is it wrong to deepfake friends into viral videos and post them on twitter? Can be. Depends. But do it in private? I don’t see an issue.
The problem I see is the public stuff. People sharing it. And it’s already too late to stop most of the private stuff. Instead we should focus on stopping AI porn from being shared and posted and create higher punishments for ANYONE who does so. The impact of fake nudes and real nudes is very similar, so just take them similarly seriously.
The person has the knowledge that this is going on.
Not necessarily, no. It could be that they might just think they’ve misplaced their socks. If you’ve lived in an apartment building with shared laundry spaces, it’s not so uncommon to loose some minor parts of clothing. But just because they don’t get to know about it, it’s not less wrong or should be less illegal.
In he situation with AI nudes, the actual person may never find out.
Also in connection with my remarks before:
A lot of our laws also apply even if no one is knowingly damaged (yet). (May of course depend on the legislation of wherever you live.)
Already intending to commit a crime can sometimes be reason enough to bring someone to court.
We can argue how much sense that makes of course, but at the current state, we, as a society, decided that doing certain things should be illegal, even if the damage has not manifested yet. And I see many good points to handle it that way with such AI porn tools as well.
It’s creepy and can lead to obsession, which can lead to actual harm for the individual.
I don’t think it should be illegal, but it is creepy and you shouldn’t do it. Also, sharing those AI images/videos could be illegal, depending on how they’re represented (e.g. it could constitute libel or fraud).
I disagree. I think it should be illegal. (And stay that way in countries where it’s already illegal.) For several reasons. For example, you should have control over what happens with your images. Also, it feels violating to become unwillingly and unasked part of the sexual act of someone else.
That sounds problematic though. If someone takes a picture and you’re in it, how do they get your consent to distribute that picture? Or are they obligated to cut out everyone but those who consent? What does that mean for news orgs?
That seems unnecessarily restrictive on the individual.
At least in the US (and probably lots of other places), any pictures taken where there isn’t a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. in public) are subject to fair use. This generally means I can use it for personal use pretty much unrestricted, and I can use it publicly in a limited capacity (e.g. with proper attribution and not misrepresented).
Yes, it’s creepy and you’re justified in feeling violated if you find out about it, but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal unless you’re actually harmed. And that barrier is pretty high to protect peoples’ rights to fair use. Without fair use, life would suck a lot more than someone doing creepy things in their own home with pictures of you.
So yeah, don’t do creepy things with other pictures of other people, that’s just common courtesy. But I don’t think it should be illegal, because the implications of the laws needed to get there are worse than the creepy behavior of a small minority of people.
Can you provide an example of when a photo has been taken that breaches the expectation of privacy that has been published under fair use? The only reason I could think that would work is if it’s in the public interest, which would never really apply to AI/deepfake nudes of unsuspecting victims.
I’m not really sure how to answer that. Fair use is a legal term that limits the “expectation of privacy” (among other things), so by definition, if a court finds it to be fair use, it has also found that it’s not a breach of the reasonable expectation of privacy legal standard. At least that’s my understanding of the law.
So my best effort here is tabloids. They don’t serve the public interest (they serve the interested public), and they violate what I consider a reasonable expectation of privacy standard, with my subjective interpretation of fair use. But I disagree with the courts quite a bit, so I’m not a reliable standard to go by, apparently.
Fair use laws relate to intellectual property, privacy laws relate to an expectation of privacy.
I’m asking when has fair use successfully defended a breach of privacy.
Tabloids sometimes do breach privacy laws, and they get fined for it.
An exfriend of mine Photoshopped nudes of another friend. For private consumption. But then someone found that folder. And suddenly someones has to live with the thought that these nudes, created without their consent, were used as spank bank material. Its pretty gross and it ended the friendship between the two.
You can still be wank material with just your Facebook pictures.
Nobody can stop anybody from wanking on your images, AI or not.
Thats already weird enough, but there is a meaningful difference between nude pictures and clothed pictures. If you wanna whack one to my fb pics of me looking at a horse, ok, weird. Dont fucking create actual nude pictures of me.
Louis CK has also sexually harassed a number of women( jerking off in front of unwilling viewers)…
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If you have to ask, you’re already pretty skeevy.
The fact that you do not even ask such questions, shows that you are narrow minded. Such mentality leads to people thinking that “homosexuality is bad” and never even try to ask why, and never having chance of changing their mind.
They cannot articulate why. Some people just get shocked at “shocking” stuff… maybe some societal reaction.
I do not see any issue in using this for personal comsumption. Yes, I am a woman. And yes people can have my fucking AI generated nudes as long as they never publish it online and never tell me about it.
The problem with these apps is that they enable people to make these at large and leave them to publish them freely wherever. This is where the dabger lies. Not in people jerking off to a picture of my fucking cunt alone in a bedroom.
Mhmm. Cool.
And if you have to say that, you’re already sounding like some judgy jerk.
Would you like if someone were to make and wank to these pictures of your kids, wife or parents ? The fact that you have to ask speaks much about you tho.
There are plenty of things I might not like that aren’t illegal.
I’m interested in thr thought experiment this has brought up, but I don’t want us to get caught in a reactionary fervor because of AI.
AI will make this easier to do, but people have been clipping magazines and celebrities have had photoshops fakes created since both mediums existed. This isn’t new, but it is being commoditized.
My take is that these pictures shouldn’t be illegal to own or create, but they should be illegal to profit off of and distribute, meaning these tools specifically designed and marketed for it would be banned. If someone wants to tinker at home with their computer, yoipl never be able to ban that, and you’ll never be able to ban sexual fantasy.
I think it should be illigal even photoshops of celebs they too are human and have emotions.
I get that it’s creepy but that’s a dark path you want to walk down. Think about how that would have to be enforced.
I would say like how cp is enforced as some of these ai fakes might even involve kids .
That’s a great example though, because truthfully digital cp is incredibly difficult to enforce, and some of the laws that have been proposed to make it easier have been incredibly controversial due to how violating they are to people’s privacy.
The fact that people don’t realize how these things can be used for bad and weaponized is insane. I mean, it shows they clearly are not part of the vulnerable group of people and their privilege of never having dealt with it.
The future is amazing! Everyone with apps going to the parks and making some kids nude. Or bullying which totally doesn’t happen in fucked up ways with all the power of the internet already.
Would it be any different if you learn how to sketch or photoshop and do it yourself?
This is also fucking creepy. Don’t do this.
But yet, we’ve (almost) all imagined someone we know naked.
I think anyone claiming otherwisw would be lying most likely.
There is a massive difference between thoughts and action. I’m sure a significant portion of us have thought about murdering someone too, does that make actually going through with murder less bad?
This is a false equivalency. The correct analogy would be: if I think about murdering someone and then draw a picture of it or make a movie about murdering them, is that wrong?
Well I’d usually say you should go to therapy if your having vivid thoughts of murdering other people
I am not saying anyone should do it and don’t need some internet stranger to police me thankyouverymuch.
You say that as if photoshopping someone naked isnt fucking creepy as well.
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
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.
Yes, because the AI (if not local) will probably store the images on their Servers
good point
This is the only good answer.
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 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?
Where is the harm of it
there is none, that’s their point
I’m going to undress Nobody. And give them sexy tentacles.
Behold my meaty, majestic tentacles. This better not awaken anything in me…
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)
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
You probably don’t need them. You can get these photos without even trying. Is a bit of a problem really.
Be the change you wish to see in the world
\s
I’ve seen a tool like that. Everyone was a bodybuilder and Hung like a horse.
Gotta wonder where they get their horse dick training images from
Where does Bad Dragon get them from?
notices ur instance
Can’t judge though, I have a Chance myself lawl
pff no exotic-erotics?
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
You probably can with the same inpainting stable diffusion tools, it’s just not as heavily advertised.
What it says is that there isn’t any demand for seeing boys naked. We simply look worse because we fucked up evolution.
Make one :P
Then I suspect you’ll find the answer is money. The ones for women simply just make more money.
This
Probably because the demand is not big or visible enough to make the development worth it, yet.
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?
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.
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).
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
If you don’t want people to jerk off to your photos, don’t upload any. It happens with and without these apps.
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?
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.
If you have no problem with people jerking off to your pictures, fine, but others do
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.
Imagining me naked and taking a picture of me that uses my body proportions and actual parts of my face and body to superimpose photo realistic genitalia onto them so that they can sexual gratify themselves to a plausible fantasy image of me naked are not even close to the same thing what are you talking about??
One is engaging in mental fantasy in a way that is still disgusting and creepy. The other is the production of pornography without consent. Using my actual face and body. Without ever asking me. It should be illegal to do this at all. I’m serious it should be against the law to produce AI pornography of someone without their consent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Plz don look at my digital pp, it make me sad… Maybe others have different feeds but the IG ad feed I know and love promotes counterfeit USD, MDMA, mushrooms, mail order brides, MLM schemes, gun building kits and all kinds of cool shit (all scams through telegram)…so why would they care about an AI image generator that puts digital nipples and cocks on people. Does that mean I can put a cock on Hilary and bobs/vagenes on trump? asking for a friend.
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 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.
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:
Putting hundreds of millions of people into a state of hopeless depression
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.
Isn’t that happening? I assumed it was.
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.
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 bullion instead of 55 billion. Boo hoo.
Well too bad maybe you only profit 46 billion instead of 55 billion.
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.
Shouldn’t AI be good at detecting and flagging ads like these?
Build an AI that will flag immoral ads and potentially lose you revenue
Build an AI to say you’re using AI to moderate ads but it somehow misses the most profitable bad actors
Which do you think Meta is doing?
“Shouldn’t AI be good” nah.
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.
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
Everyone from top to bottom can be replaced
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.
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.
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
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!
So many of these comments are breaking down into argumenrs 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.
