Kids are making deepfakes of each other, and laws aren’t keeping up
-
especially that
AbbotTed Cruz, who brought this one up, voted against it in the end, which is pretty confusing for an european tbhe: i mean that it's memeworthy lol
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm confused - by Abbot do you mean Gov. Abbott of Texas, and are we talking about the same issue? Cuz the 99-1 vote was about a senate bill regarding AI. Greg Abbott can't vote on senate bills, and there's no senator named Abbot.
-
I'm confused - by Abbot do you mean Gov. Abbott of Texas, and are we talking about the same issue? Cuz the 99-1 vote was about a senate bill regarding AI. Greg Abbott can't vote on senate bills, and there's no senator named Abbot.
wrote last edited by [email protected]aaah i misremembered, it was Ted Cruz, oops
-
I think generating and sharing sexually explicit images of a person without their consent is abuse.
That's distinct from generating an image that looks like CSAM without the involvement of any real child. While I find that disturbing, I'm morally uncomfortable criminalizing an act that has no victim.
Harassment sure, but not abuse.
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]not necessarily. image generation models work on a more fine-grained scale than that. they can seamlessly combine related concepts, like "photograph"+"person"+"small"+"pose" and generate plausible material due to the fact that all of those concepts have features in common.
you can also use small add-on models trained on very little data (tens to hundreds of images, as compared to millions to billions for a full model) to "steer" the output of a model towards a particular style.
you can make even a fully legal model output illegal data.
all that being said, the base dataset that most of the stable diffusion family of models started out with in 2021 is medical in nature so there could very well be bad shit in there. it's like 12 billion images so it's hard to check, and even back with stable diffusion 1.0 there was less than a single bit of data in the final model per image in the data.
-
Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.
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.
-
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
This is mostly about swapping faces. You take a video and a photo of someone's face. Software can replace the face of someone in the video with that face. That's been around for a decade or so. There are other ways of doing it.
When the face belongs to an underage individual, and the video is pornographic...
LLMs only do text.
-
Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.
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.
-
When someone makes child porn they put a child in a sexual situation - which is something that we have amassed a pile of evidence is extremely harmful to the child.
For all you have said - "without the consent" - "being sexualised" - "commodifies their existence" - you haven't told us what the harm is. If you think those things are in and of themselves harmful then I need to know more about what you mean because:
- if someone thinks of me sexually without my consent I am not harmed
- if someone sexualises me in their mind I am not harmed
- I don't know what the "commodification of one's existence" can actually mean - I can't buy or sell "the existence of women" (does buying something's existence mean the same as buying the thing, or something else?) the same I can aluminium, and I don't see how being able to (easily) make (realistic) nude images of someone changes this in any way
It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic,
I am not unempathetic, but I attribute the blame for what makes me feel bad about the situation is that girls are being made to feel bad and ashamed not that a particular technology is now being used in one step of that.
Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?
The harm is:
- Those photos now exist in the world and can lead to direct harm to the victim by their exposure
- it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
- The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.
- your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.
-
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.
Yeah there’s some nasty shit here. Big yikes, Lemmy.
-
If someone put a camera in the girls’ locker room and distributed photos from that, would you consider it CSAM? No contact would have taken place so the kids would be unaware when they were photographed, is it still abuse?
If so, how is the psychological effect of a convincing deepfake any different?
If someone puts a camera in a locker room, that means that someone entered a space where you would usually feel safe. It implies the potential of a physical threat.
It also means that someone observed you when you were doing "secret" things. One may feel vulnerable in such situations. Even a seasoned nude model might be embarrassed to be seen while changing, maybe in a dishevelled state.
I would think it is very different. Unless you're only thinking about the psychological effect on the viewer.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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
In the case of US govt, the AI part of the bill they voted against was the part that blocked regulations on AI for a period of 10 years.
In case that wasn't clear, the US govt voted in favor of regulating AI. 99-1.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
I would consider that as qualifying. Because it's targeted harassment in a sexually-explicit manner. All the girl would have to do is claim it's her.
Source: I'm a father of teenage daughters. I would pursue the individual(s) who started it and make them regret their choices.
-
Disagree. Not CSAM when no abuse has taken place.
That's my point.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Except, you know, the harassment and abuse of said deepfaked individual. Which is sexual in nature. Sexual harassment and abuse of a child using materials generated based on the child's identity.
Maybe we could have a name for it. Something like Child-based sexual harassment and abuse material... CSHAM, or maybe just CSAM, you know, to remember it more easily.
-
Historically, the respectability of a woman depended on her sexuality. In many conservative cultures and communities, that is still true. Spreading the message that deepfakes are some particular horrible form of harassment reinforces that view.
If having your head on the model of a nude model is a terrible crime, then what does that say about the nude model? What does it say about women who simply happen to develop a larger bosom or lips? What does it say about sex before marriage?
The implicit message here is simply harmful to girls and women.
That doesn't mean that we should tolerate harassment. But it needs to be understood that we can do no more to stop this kind of harassment than we can do to stop any other kind.
Spoken like someone who hasn't been around women.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
Oh I just assumed that every Conservative jerks off to kids
Get some receipts and that will be a start.
-
Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.
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.
-
Get some receipts and that will be a start.
We're at 56 pages of this now for a nice round count of 1400 charges
So far as I am aware all of these are publicly searchable court cases
