187
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Julia, 21, has received fake nude photos of herself generated by artificial intelligence. The phenomenon is exploding.

"I'd already heard about deepfakes and deepnudes (...) but I wasn't really aware of it until it happened to me. It was a slightly anecdotal event that happened in other people's lives, but it wouldn't happen in mine", thought Julia, a 21-year-old Belgian marketing student and semi-professional model.

At the end of September 2023, she received an email from an anonymous author. Subject: "Realistic? "We wonder which photo would best resemble you", she reads.

Attached were five photos of her.

In the original content, posted on her social networks, Julia poses dressed. In front of her eyes are the same photos. Only this time, Julia is completely naked.

Julia has never posed naked. She never took these photos. The Belgian model realises that she has been the victim of a deepfake.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago

I didn't, but don't let that stop you throwing a tantrum and proving my point.

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

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".

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

and groups of people insisting they should be able to openly trade images of child rape as long as they’re AI generated.

"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?

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

But what would the legal reason be to make it illegal since no actual children were involved

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 2 years ago

And you can provide a link to that I am sure

this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
187 points (93.5% liked)

News

36384 readers
828 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS