A Telegram user who advertises their services on Twitter will create an AI-generated pornographic image of anyone in the world for as little as $10 if users send them pictures of that person. Like many other Telegram communities and users producing nonconsensual AI-generated sexual images, this user creates fake nude images of celebrities, including images of minors in swimsuits, but is particularly notable because it plainly and openly shows one of the most severe harms of generative AI tools: easily creating nonconsensual pornography of ordinary people.
To people who aren’t sure if this should be illegal or what the big deal is: according to Harvard clinical psychiatrist and instructor Dr. Alok Kanojia (aka Dr. K from HealthyGamerGG), once non-consensual pornography (which deepfakes are classified as) is made public over half of people involved will have the urge to kill themselves. There’s also extreme risk of feeling depressed, angry, anxiety, etc. The analogy given is it’s like watching video the next day of yourself undergoing sex without consent as if you’d been drugged.
I’ll admit I used to look at celeb deepfakes, but once I saw that video I stopped immediately and avoid it as much as I possibly can. I believe porn can be done correctly with participant protection and respect. Regarding deepfakes/revenge porn though that statistic about suicidal ideation puts it outside of healthy or ethical. Obviously I can’t make that decision for others or purge the internet, but the fact that there’s such regular and extreme harm for the (what I now know are) victims of non-consensual porn makes it personally immoral. Not because of religion or society but because I want my entertainment to be at minimum consensual and hopefully fun and exciting, not killing people or ruining their happiness.
I get that people say this is the new normal, but it’s already resulted in trauma and will almost certainly continue to do so. Maybe even get worse as the deepfakes get more realistic.
I’m wondering if this may already be illegal in some countries. Revenge porn laws now exist in some countries, and I’m not sure if the legislation specifies how the material should be produced to qualify. And if the image is based on a minor, that’s often going to be illegal too - some places I hear even pornographic cartoons are illegal if they feature minors. In my mind people who do this shit are doing something pretty similar to putting hidden cameras in bathrooms.
The technology will become available everywhere and run on every device over time. Nothing will stop this
Porn of Normal People
Why did they feel the need to add that “normal” to the headline?
Because it’s different to somebody going online and finding a stock picture of Taylor Swift
People who have Wikipedia articles have less of an expectation of privacy than normal people
This telegram user has a hard stance on “weirdos”.
I’d like to share my initial opinion here. “non consential Ai generated nudes” is technically a freedom, no? Like, we can bastardize our president’s, paste peoples photos on devils or other characters, why is Ai nudes where the line is drawn? The internet made photos of trump and putin kissing shirtless.
It’s a far cry from making weird memes to making actual porn. Especially when it’s not easily seen as fake.
I think their point is where is the line and why is the line where it is?
Psychological trauma. Normal people aren’t used to dealing with that and even celebrities seek help for it. Throw in the transition period where this technology is not widely known and you have careers on the line too.
Seems to fall under any other form of legal public humiliation to me, UNLESS it is purported to be true or genuine. I think if there’s a clear AI watermark or artists signature that’s free speech. If not, it falls under Libel - false and defamatory statements or facts, published as truth. Any harmful deep fake released as truth should be prosecuted as Libel or Slander, whether it’s sexual or not.
The internet made photos of trump and putin kissing shirtless.
And is that OK? I mean I get it, free speech, but just because congress can’t stop you from expressing something doesn’t mean you actually should do it. It’s basically bullying.
Imagine you meet someone you really like at a party, they like you too and look you up on a social network… and find galleries of hardcore porn with you as the star. Only you’re not a porn star, those galleries were created by someone who specifically wanted to hurt you.
AI porn without consent is clearly illegal in almost every country in the world, and the ones where it’s not illegal yet it will be illegal soon. The 1st amendment will be a stumbling block, but it’s not an impenetrable wall - congress can pass laws that limit speech in certain edge cases, and this will be one of them.
The internet made photos of trump and putin kissing shirtless.
And is that OK?
I’m going to jump in on this one and say yes - it’s mostly fine.
I look at these things through the lens of the harm they do and the benefits they deliver - consequentialism and act utilitarianism.
The benefits are artistic, comedic and political.
The “harm” is that Putin and or Trump might feel bad, maaaaaaybe enough that they’d kill themselves. All that gets put back up under benefits as far as I’m concerned - they’re both extremely powerful monsters that have done and will continue to do incredible harm.
The real harm is that such works risk normalising this treatment of regular folk, which is genuinely harmful. I think that’s unlikely, but it’s impossible to rule out.
Similarly, the dissemination of the kinds of AI fakes under discussion is a negative because they do serious,measurable harm.
Public figures vs private figures. Fair or not a public figure is usually open season. Go ahead and make a comic where Ben Stein rides a horse home to his love nest with Ben Stiller.
Lemme put it this way. Freedom of speech isn’t freedom of consequences. You talk shit, you’re gonna get hit. Is it truly freedom if you’re infringing on someone else’s rights?
Yeah you don’t have the right to prevent people from drawing pictures of you, but you do have the right not to get hit by some guy you’re drawing.
Don’t get me wrong it’s unsettling, but I agree, I don’t see the initial harm. I see it as creating a physical manifestation of someone’s inner thoughts. I can definitely see how it could become or encourage dangerous situations, but that’s like banning alcohol because it could lead to drunk driving or sexual assault.
God, generative ai is such a fucking caustic technology. I honestly don’t see anything positive and not disgusting enabled by this tech.
Edit: I see people don’t agree, but like why can’t ai stick to translating stuff and being useful rather than making horrifically unethical porn, taking the humanity out of art, and replacing peoples jobs with statistical content generation. I hate it here.
It’s stuff like this that makes me against copyright laws. To me it is clear and obvious that you own your own image, and it is far less obvious to me that a company can own an image whose creator drew multiple decades ago that everyone can identify. And yet one is protected and the other isn’t.
What the hell do you own if not yourself? How come a corporation has more rights than we do?
It’s gonna suck no matter what once the technology became available. Perhaps in a bunch of generations there will be a massive cultural shift to something less toxic.
May as well drink the poison if I’m gonna be immersed in it. Cheers.
I was really hoping that with the onset of AI people would be more skeptical of content they see online.
This was one of the reasons. I don’t think there’s anything we can do to prevent people from acting like this, but what we can do as a society is adjust to it so that it’s not as harmful. I’m still hoping that the eventual onset of it becoming easily accessible and useable will help people to look at all content much more closely.
This business is going to get out of control. It’s going to get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.
Oooo puter’ bobs and vagenes. Scissor me timbers that gets me hot n bothered
The root problem is government not enforcing the law on internet. Deepfakes existed for years.
The law enforcement should be more proactive on internet.Every time this comes up, all the tech nerds here like to excuse it as fine and not a bad thing at all. I am hoping this won’t happen this time, but knowing lemmys audience…
I think part of the difficulty discussing this is the discussions usually combine two different things. The production and distribution.
I was informed elsewhere in this thread people can already produce these images/videos on their own machines with no third parties involved or remote processing. I can’t think of a single thing that can be done about that so acceptance is all we’ve got.
Nonconsensual sharing, on the other hand, we can and should do something about. The legal system won’t be able to stop it altogether but it can push it to the fringes and stop it from becoming mainstream so any victims wouldn’t see fake images/videos of themselves proliferating everywhere.
It’s not a matter of excusing it. Distribution of someone’s picture without their explicit consent, and anything like that, is inexcusable. But we’re talking about the generation of said content, which technically can’t be stopped without seriously restraining everything.
