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!”
This seems like a pretty significant overreaction. Like yes, it’s gross and it feels personal, but it’s not like any of the subjects were willing participants…their reputation is not being damaged. Would they lose their shit about a kid gluing a cut out of their crush’s face over the face of a pornstar in a magazine? Is this really any different from that?
deleted by creator
Obviously this is creepy, but the technology is out there, one of those can’t put the genie back in the bottle techs. You can and should look at the people generating the images as creeps, but ultimately we as a society need to learn to not put as much veracity or identity in images now.
With that said where the fuck did this model get its training data for 14 year olds. That sounds like a more serious issue.
Nowhere, at least for any model you could get your hands at in public places like civitai. Or, well, it’s not like they can tell whether someone trained on those kinds of pictures but they’re rightly nuking any underage/loli example images, as well as anyone who posts them, from orbit.
Generally speaking models can be very good at mixing concepts they have an understanding of, say a giraffe with zebra stripes, but that doesn’t mean that you can just combine anything – if you try to generate a nude human with zebra fur you’re bound to get body paint, random skimpy zebra-striped clothing, or at most a fursuit, not convincing fur, unless you use a model trained by furries but at that point you’ll have trouble generating faces without muzzles: The AI just doesn’t know how actual zebrakin look like so it’s either copping out or making stuff up.
I’ve never tried nor am I remotely attracted to that age range but I wouldn’t be surprised if a paedophile would complain “these aren’t kids they’re scaled-down adults”. Things like the difference between budding and small breasts, ask a biologist I haven’t seen 14yold breasts in over two decades.
On another note though I’d much rather have paedophiles jack off to generated images than doing anything involving actual children, including creeping around. Lesser of two evils and all that. Therapy, of course, is preferable to both.
How do you know that these people replace harassment with these pictures? And not just do both, or even increase their fetishes?
What about the girls who’s pictures were used as material for these generated images?
deleted by creator
AFAIK psychologists simply don’t know, and it might be a case by case thing.
As I explained, it might not be necessary to have any underage material in the training data.
Generally speaking I didn’t come here to have a deep discussion about a very difficult moral and legal issue, I’ll leave that up to the specialists. I wanted to say something about AI and somehow all answers I get are about the last tacked-on paragraph making a quick statement about me preferring keeping paedophiles away from kids.
deleted by creator
I’ll leave the judgement of that to psychologists. What should not be controversial, however, is the amount of direct harm avoided if one can be replaced by the other.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the less shitty.
deleted by creator
I did not suggest anything. I expressed a preference: That it’s better if a paedophile jacks off to generated pictures than if they molest actual children. What do you disagree with, there? That both situations are equally bad, that an equal amount of harm is occurring? Have you ever asked a victim about that.
Just for the record: Not by a far stretch all countries outlaw drawings, fiction, etc., but only as the German term goes “documents of child abuse”.
You mean your accusation and I tend to do that for civility’s sake as doing otherwise tends to result in shouting matches. It is AFAIK currently unknown whether, by and large, paedophiles having access to simulated material for their sexual gratification increases or decreases the incidence of child abuse happening. I have no idea either, you don’t know better either, and it may very well differ on a case-by-case basis. All I’m saying is that I’d rather have them fapping than molesting children is that so hard to understand and why in the everloving fuck would you disagree with that: If anything it’s you who’s trivialising child abuse (and, look, see, I stopped to ignore your incitement and we’re in an accusatory shouting match)
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Not that they aren’t both bad but I hate this false equivalence between images that were created by literally raping a child and filming that rape and images that were created purely from the imagination of the creator. This is what is actually enabling child abuse by treating both identically in legal terms because to the person attracted to children you suddenly made the cost identical while they probably prefer the real thing to a fake thing.
deleted by creator
But most people and most legal jurisdictions do not make that distinction and that is my point. I am not saying either should be legal but at the very least one should carry a lot lower punishments, in a similar way that possession of stolen goods and possession of murder weapons are both punished but not with the same severity.
deleted by creator
Right, the technology is out there so we as a society need to establish norms, customs, and yes, laws governing its use.
I’m pretty firmly on the side of there being legal consequences for taking pictures of real minors, running them through a service to create nude replicas, and then circulating those pictures. That is wrong on so many levels and could constitute any number of crimes without the AI component including, such as harassment. I mean, intentionally using someone’s likeness to circulate embarrassing materials already had legal consequences. This is just a whole other level of ick on top.
Personally I don’t see a difference between using an AI service or plain old Photoshop to create a fake nude picture of someone. Both should be punished in the same way and if law makers haven’t caught up with the Photoshop version after 30 years they likely won’t handle the AI version in this century either.
I would agree, though I wonder about the service mentioned that is dedicated to the process. My comment was in response to someone who seemed to think circulating fake nudes wasn’t a problem, regardless of how they were generated.
deleted by creator
I don’t see the difference of photoshopping a convincing nude of the same minor vs. using AI to generate a nude of the same minor.
deleted by creator
It’s not enough to just look at the people who did this as creeps.
It’s not different, it’s all fake, cobbled together from images of other people’s bodies and will show zero authentic details about the subject except what are already known and visible about them.
What the fuck are you talking about? Spreading nude photos of any provenance around at work is definitely an HR violation, and the use of my partner’s face in them (just like pasting their face on a pornstar’s photo) is sexual harassment. Nothing about it being AI generated changes any of that equation except to make it a little more uncanny.
It’s a fad, and how would we deal with you sending your hand drawn pictures around the neighborhood….form a group of concerned moms and raid all of the local art shops to stop the sale of drawing materials?
The genie is out of the bottle. We can shower these types of content with huge attention which will ultimately extend and expand the fad, we can ignore them because they are pointless, or we can try a futile war on AI porn that, like the war on drugs, will ruin a lot of ultimately benign peoples lives in order to crack down on a few legitimately criminal creeps who probably can already be prosecuted according to existing laws.
Why is it not sexual harassment if the target are teenage girls?
In my opinion there should be really impactful punishment for the people who did this. Otherwise there will be more and more people like you who seem to think this is a funny little school prank.
deleted by creator
These are school girls in their teenage years.To them and their parents, this must be a nightmare.
Why? They didn’t take or share any nudes, and nobody believes they did.
This is only a nightmare if an ignorant adult tells them that it is.
@duxbellorum
So you don’t have children, right?
Did your picture got taken and shared as a teenager? Did you get heavily sexualised and harassed? Believe me, it feels like a nightmare even if no one is telling you that it should feel like a nightmare.
Take your “sexual harassment is only bad to teenage girls if you tell them” shit elsewhere.
I don’t want to band wagon against you, but I do think it’s important that people who agree with your viewpoint have a chance to understand that the situation is a violation of privacy.
The kids’ reputation is, likely, damaged. You have an underage girl who is already dealing with the confusion and hierarchy of high school. Then (A) someone generates semi-accurate photos of what their naked body looks like and (B) distributes it to others.
Issue (A) is bad because it’s essentially CSAM and also because it’s attempting to access a view of someone that the subject likely hasn’t permitted the generator to have access to. This is a privacy violation and the ethics around it are questionable at best.
Issue (B) is that the generator didn’t stop at the violations of issue (A), but has now shared that material with other people who know the subject without the subject’s consent, and likely without her knowledge of the recipients. This means that the subject now has to perpetually wonder if every person they interact with (friends, teachers, other parents, her own parents) have seen lewd pictures of her. Hopefully you can see how this could disturb a young woman.
Now apply a different situation to it. Suppose you took a test at school or at work that shows you as dumb (like, laughably dumb; enough to make you feel subconscious). Even if you don’t think it’s a fair test, this test exists. Now, assume that someone shared this test with your friends, co-workers, and even your parents without you knowing exactly who received it. And instead of everyone saying “it’s just a dumb test — it doesn’t mean anything”, they decide it means something about you. Every hour or so, you walk by someone or interact with someone who chuckles or cracks a joke at your expense. You’re not allowed by your community to move on from this test.
Before your test was released, you could blend in. Now, you’re the person everyone is looking at and judging. Think of that added anxiety on top of everything else you have to deal with.
That part is not a privacy violation, the same way someone drawing in a canvas their own impression of what a bank vault looks like on the inside does not constitute a trespassing / violation of privacy of the bank. Unless the AI in question used actual nudes of them as a basis, but then we wouldn’t need the extra AI step for this to be a problem, right? Otherwise, I’m rather sure that the actual privacy violation starts at (B).
Ofc, none of that makes it less of a problem, but it does feel to me like it subverts a potential angle for fighting against this.
I appreciate your input and am thankful for your perspective, mate.
I appreciate your intentions, but your examples are just not up to the standard needed to treat AI generated nudes any differently than a nude magazine collage with kids’ crushes faces in it.
As uncanny as the nudes might be, they are NOT accurate. People know this and they are going to learn one way or another to adjust their definition of “real”. No character details like moles or their actual skin tone, or anything like this will be accurately portrayed. They have no reason to think “someone has seen their naked body”. Yeah, if someone tells them to worry about it, they will, as any young person will, but why? The bigger the deal we make of it, the worse it is, and the litmus test is, is it bad if we decide to ignore it and teach kids that ai generated nudes have nothing to do with them and that they can safely ignore them, then they do basically zero harm.
How is your test example related to this at all? In the one case, my face and clothed picture is acquired likely with my implied permission from social media and modifications that i did not authorize are added to it and it is then distributed, making me look naked and having no bearing on my person or character (since the ai doesn’t actually know what i look like naked) so no conclusion anyone would draw from it constitutes a disclosure of information about me. The test example constitutes a clear disclosure with provenance to establish the validity of the information, quire a different scenario. It is true that AI chat bots can be jail-broken to release my previous questions which might reveal things about my character that i do not wish to disclose, but that is a different issue and unrelated to these nude generators.
I’m not saying handing these nudes to a kid or blackmailing them is not criminal or harassment, just that the technology and medium should have almost no bearing on how we treat this.
Buddy, I want to let you know that I wrote a big rebuttal and then accidentally canceled my comment and it got erased. In my response I disagreed with your original argument and your rebuttal as well, but that I respected the time it took to share your thoughts. I’m so sad my dumb comment got deleted, lol
Know that I appreciate your lengthy response back to me.
Be well.
Bruh, all of this sounds creepy as shit.