Police investigation remains open. The photo of one of the minors included a fly; that is the logo of Clothoff, the application that is presumably being used to create the images, which promotes its services with the slogan: “Undress anybody with our free service!”

  • Blapoo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    What, exactly would they regulate? The training data? The output? What kinds of user inputs are accepted?

    All of this is hackable.

    • pseudorandom@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s child porn in this case. Regulate it as such. Putting a real child’s head onto an AI generated body is sexualizing a child.

      • FUCKRedditMods@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what he’s saying, he’s asking what grounds and mechanism they have for regulating the platform itself.

    • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Making unauthorized nude images of other people, probably. The service did advertise, “undress anyone”.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Philosophical question becomes, if it’s AI generated is it really a photo of them?

        Let’s take it to an extreme. If you cut the face off somebody’s polaroid and then paste it into a nudie magazine over the face of an actress. Is that amalgam a nude photo of the Polaroid picture person?

        It’s a debate that could go either way, and I’m sure we will have an exciting legal land scape with countries with different rules.

        • taladar@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          I suppose you could make a Ship of Theseus like argument there too. At what point does it matter where the parts of the picture came from. Most would probably be okay with their hairstyle being added to someone else’s picture, what about their eyes, their mouth,… Where exactly is the line?

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Exactly. A bunch of litigators are going to get very rich debating this.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Philosophical question becomes, if it’s AI generated is it really a photo of them?

          That does not matter, as people can’t make a difference, even if they wanted.
          It is a photo about them if you can recognize them, especially their face, on it.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What if there’s somebody who looks very similar to somebody else? Are they prevented from using their likeness in film and media?

            Could an identical twin sister be forbidden from going into porn, to prevent her from besmirching the good image of her other twin sister who’s a teacher?

        • RagnarokOnline@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it comes down to the identity of the person whose head is on the body. For instance, if the eyes had a black bar covering them or if the face was blurred out, would it be as much an invasion of privacy?

          However, if the face was censored, the photo wouldn’t have the same appeal to the person who generated it. That’s the issue here.

          A cutout of a person’s head on a porn star’s picture still has a sense of falsehood to it. An AI generated image that’s likely similar to the subject’s body type removes a lot of the falsehood, and thus makes the image have more power. Without the subject’s consent, this power is harmful.

          You’re right about the legal battles, though. I just feel bad for the people who will have their dignity compromised in the mean time. Everyone should be entitled to dignity.

        • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this sort of situations the conclusion would be easy or in cases where we have the input photo. But absolutely it could get iffy

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Objectively it’s absolutely not AIs don’t have X-ray eyes. Best they could do is infer rough body shape from a clothed example but anything beyond that is pure guesswork. The average 14yold is bound to be much better at undressing people with their eyes than an AI could ever be.

          Subjectively, though, of course yes it is. You’re not imagining the cutie two desks over nude because it isn’t them.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          How about we teach people some baseline of respect towards other people? Punishing behaviour like that can help showing that it’s not okay to treat other people like pieces of meat.

          • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You go ahead and make AI generated kiddie porn and we’ll find out.

            • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m fairly sure there are legal cases about it, so no need to encourage anyone to make kiddie porn…

                • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m confused why anyone would encourage others to make AI kiddie porn. Weird as fuck dude

                  • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re questioning if it’s even illegal to do.
                    I simply pointed out that of course it is illegal.

                    Now you agree that it is illegal. Ok, my point has been made.

      • Blapoo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good point. What I mean by that is you can modify the prompt or the output to an extent where it can be argued “Nah, that’s not her. It was just inspired by her for this result”

        Is it illegal to draw from imagination someone else nude?

    • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Surely there will be loop holes, but there must be laws there in the first place. Better something than nothing