187
"Shame must change sides": a Belgian model warns about deepnudes
(www.euronews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
187 points (93.5% liked)
News
23275 readers
1334 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is this different to how people would edit Britney Spears' face onto porn stars in the 90s?
It's much easier to do now. You should be able to do several in a single minute and the barrier to entry of using the software is way lower than Photoshop. Legally though, these seem indistinguishable.
They're easier to create and more realistic. The prevalence and magnitude of an immoral act impacts how it should be legislated. Personally I don't care if people make these and keep it to themselves, but as soon as you spread it I think it's immoral and harassment and there should be laws to prevent it.
It's like that, except deep
Probably should have sued those people too... People need to cut this shit out. You're fucking with others people's life's.
They're not going to. There is an insane amount of entitlement around people's jerk off material. Right here on Lemmy, I've seen someone (who denied being a child) call pornography a "human right" and groups of people insisting they should be able to openly trade images of child rape as long as they're AI generated.
Fuck you people who equate pornography with child porn. You know what you're doing, you sick bastards.
Pornography is not at all the same thing as child porn. Do not speak about them in the same way.
I didn't, but don't let that stop you throwing a tantrum and proving my point.
That sounds like an insane amount of entitlement from the one guy you found. Hopefully that entitles you to ignore everyone with even a fraction more nuance.
How dare I ignore the many subtle layers of nuance in "Using AI to create pornographic images of a woman and then sending them to her so she knows you've done it".
"Be able to" in what sense? Morally and ethically? No, absolutely not obviously. But what would the legal reason be to make it illegal since no actual children were involved? If I paint an explicit painting of a child being raped, is that illegal? I don't think it would be. It would certainly give people good reason to be suspicious of me, but would it be illegal? And would an AI-generated image really be different?
Prove it. Trawl through thousands and thousands of images and videos of child sexual assualt and tell me which ones were AI generated and which were not. Prove the AI hadn't been set up to produce CSAM matching a real child's likeness. Prove it won't normalize and promote the sexual assault of real children. Prove it wasn't trained on images and videos of real children being raped.
Legalising AI-generated child pornography is functionally identical to legalising all child pornography.
Legalizing or already legal? Because that's my question. I don't think it would be illegal, at least not in the U.S. I can't speak for other countries, but here, proving a negative in court isn't a thing.
And you can provide a link to that I am sure
Sure. Can.
I think porn generation (image, audio and video) will eventually be very realistic and very easy to make with only a few clicks and some well crafted prompts. Things would just be a whole other level that what Photoshop used to be.