Thanks ahead of time for your feedback
i think its ‘barrier to entry’
photoshop took skills that not everyone has/had keeping the volume low.
these new generators require zero skill or technical ability so anyone can do it
Scale also, you can create nudes of everyone on Earth in a fraction of the time it would take with Photoshop. All for the lowly cost of electricity.
I mean its as easy as cut and paste.
deleted by creator
What if my goal is to constantly be led around by media every decade to fear things needlessly when when they use the same lazy appeals every decade.
The right have immigrant headlines. The left seem to hate AI and technology now.
What’s mind blowing is how the same headline are used for both.
deleted by creator
so anyone can do it
so anyone can do it and the victim can be your neighbor next door, not some celebrity, where you can internally normalize it with “well, it is a price of fame”
unfortunately, this list is only going to grow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicides_attributed_to_bullying
Have you tried to get consistent goal orientated results from these ai tools.
To reliably generate a person you need to configure many components, fiddle with the prompts and constantly tweak.
To do this well in my eyes is a fair bit harder than learning how to use the magic wand in Photoshop.
I mean, inpainting isn’t particularly hard to make use of. There are also tools specifically for the purpose of generating “deepfake” nudes. The barrier for entry is much, much lower.
deleted by creator
When Photoshop first appeared, image manipulations that would seem obvious and amateurish by today’s standards were considered very convincing—the level of skill needed to fool large numbers of people didn’t increase until people became more familiar with the technology and more vigilant at spotting it. I suspect the same process will play out with AI images—in a few years people will be much more experienced at detecting them, and making a convincing fake will take as much effort as it now does in Photoshop.
Nope, the ai will continue to get better, and soon spotting the fakes will be nearly impossible.
deleted by creator
Well, I think everyone has already covered that it was a big deal at the time, it simply wasn’t something we could wipe out as a society.
And it’s still a big deal.
However, I don’t think anyone touched on why fake nudes, even ones that are obviously fake, or even labeled as fake by the creator are a problem.
It comes back to the entire idea of consent. That’s for anyone, but women in particular are heavily sexualized, even well before they’re women. There is a constant, unending pressure on women of knowing that they are going to be sexually objectified. It might not be every day, by everyone alive around them, but it is inescapable.
One can debate whether or not nudity should be a big deal, whether or not it is sexualized because of the rules a given culture has around nudity, but the hard truth is that nudity is sexualized. Ergo, images of a woman’s body is something that they deserve to have control over access to. If someone consents to images being available, great! If they don’t, then there’s a problem.
Fakes, even obvious and declared fakes, violate that barrier of body autonomy. They directly ignore the person’s wishes regarding their naked body.
The better the fake, the worse that violation is, because (as others said), once a fake is good enough, the subject of the fake is put in the position of having to deny it’s them. They shouldn’t have to ever be in that position, no matter who it is.
Even a porn performer should have the ability to be free of fakes because they didn’t consent to those fakes. They also have a very valid claim on it infringing on their income as well. Now, I’m certain that legal fakes will someday be a thing. There will be contracts for likeness rights to produce fake porn. Bet on it. If I had free income, I would immediately invest in such an endeavor because I guarantee it will make money.
But, as things stand, fakes are no better than someone taking a picture through a window shade, or using infrared to sneak by clothing. It’s digital, and it’s fake, but it is the direct equivalent of violating someone’s privacy and body autonomy.
That’s why it’s a big deal to begin with.
And, yeah, it is something that’s here to stay, it’s unavoidable. And someone is bound to comment that they wouldn’t care. Great, good for you. That doesn’t obligate others to not care too. But, put it to the test and provide a few pictures of yourself in your comment so that someone can make a fake nude of you, then plaster it online with zero context and labeled with at least your user name so everyone running across it can direct responses to it to you.
It’s all about personal privacy, consent, and body autonomy.
Because now, anyone can do it to anyone with zero effort and a single photo.
Sure, before anyone with decent Photoshop skills could put together a halfway decently convincing fake nude but its still significantly more effort and time than most would be bothered with and even then its fairly easy to spot and dispute a fake.
Most people weren’t concerned if a celebrity’s fake nudes were spread around before but now that a colleague, student, teacher, family member, or even a random member of the public could generate a convincing photo the threat has become far more real and far more conceivable
To be fair. Photoshop has made tasks like this incredible simple. With a “good” photo, the process is much less esoteric now than it was once.
deleted by creator
Doctored photos have always been a problem and, legally speaking, could lead to the faker being sued for defamation, depending on what was done with the person’s image.
AI Photos are only part of the problem. Faking the voice is also possible, as is making “good enough” videos where you just change the head of the actual performer.
Another part of the problem is that this kind of stuff spreads like wildfire within groups (and it’s ALWAYS groups where the victim is) and any voices stating that it’s fake will be drowned by everyone else.
It was always a big deal. But back then it was often pretty obvious when it was a fake. It’s getting harder and harder to tell.
How do you prove it’s not you in either case? Photoshop doesn’t make a whole video of you fucking a sheep. But AI can and is actively being used that way. With Photoshop it was a matter of getting ahold of the file and inspecting it. Even the best Photoshop jobs have some key tells. Artifacting, layering, all kinds of shading and lighting, how big the file is, etc.
I want to add something. What if all the sudden it’s your 12 year old daughter being portrayed in this fake? What if it’s your mom? It would have been a big deal to you to have that image out there of your loved one back in the 90’s or early 2000’s. It’s the same kind of big deal now but more widespread because it’s so easy now. It’s not okay to just use the image of someone in ways they didn’t consent to. I have a similar issue with facial recognition regardless of the fact that it’s used in public places where I have no control over it.
A lifetime full of accomplishments and nobody recalls or gives you a pat on the back…
…but you get deepfaked fucking ONE sheep and no one ever forgets.
Hey, it surely was an accident…
https://jokesoftheday.com/some-things-you-just-cant-explain/
Honestly? It was kind of shitty back then and is just as shitty nowadays.
I mean, I get why people do it. But in my honest opinion, it’s still a blatant violation of that person’s dignity, at least if it’s distributed.
It’s a bit of a blend of it has always been a big deal, and that it is indeed more of a big deal still now because of how easy, accessible, and believable the AI can be. Like even nowadays, Photoshop hits only one point of that triangle. But it was even less capable back in the day. It could hit half of one of those points at any given time.
Basically, a nude generated by a good AI has to be proven false. Because it doesn’t always immediately seem as such at first. If you have seen obvious AI fakes, they are just that, obvious. There are many non-obvious ones that you might have seen and not known they were fake. That is, of course, assuming you have looked.
The other reason it can be more of a big deal now is that kids have been doing it of other kids. And since the results can be believable, the parents didn’t know they were fake to start with. So it would blow up as if it was real before finding out it was AI. And anything involving that is gonna be a big deal.
It’s only a big deal because of puritan society like in the US or UK or similar in the first place. There are societies where nudity is not a big deal anyway, so nude photos of someone are also no big deal.
Look at Germany for example. Lots of FKK (nude) areas. No one really bats an eye. Of course there nudity is also not perfectly normalized, especially in some circles. But still, not many are concerned about nude pictures of themselves.
Obviously AI makes more nude pictures faster than someone skilled at Photoshop. So if your society has a problem with nudity, there will be more problems than before.
But really, there shouldn’t be a problem anyway.
They’re not even actual nudes - they’re fake. It seems to me to be no different than putting someone’s head on a Big Bird photo.
That said, nobody gets to decide what’s offensive to other people. Just do as they ask and don’t do the fake nudes. It’s not like there’s a shortage of porn done by willing adults.
I’m not saying people should do it. I’m just talking about a fundamental principle to keep yourself happy: to not be hurt by what other people are doing. In the end, you can’t control what other people will do. But you can control your reaction to what they do.
Of course, everyone is also allowed to disagree with this advice. I’m just sharing what works for me. If someone wants to feel bad/offended about someone making a fake nude of them, I don’t want to stop anyone doing that (and I can’t).
Because previously if someone had the skills to get rich off the skill making convincing fake nudes we could arrest and punish them - people with similar skillsets would usually prefer more legitimate work.
Now some ass in his basement can crank them out and it’s a futile game of whack-a-mole to kill them dead.
it’s a futile game of whack-a-mole
It’s still going to be futile even with this law in place. Society is going to have to get used to the fact that photo-realistic images aren’t evidence of anything (especially since the technology will keep improving).
It blows my mind when I think about where we might be headed with this tech. We’ve gotten SO used to the ability to communicate instantly with people far away in the technology age, how will we adapt when we have to go back 300 years and can only trust something someone tells us in person. Will we go back to local newspapers? Or can we not even trust that? Will we have public amphitheaters in busy parts of town, where people will around the news? And we can only trust these people, who have a direct chain of acquaintance all the way back to the source of the information? That seems extreme, but I dunno.
I think most likely we won’t implement extreme measures like that, to ensure we’re still getting genuine information. I think most likely we’ll just slip into completely generated false news from every source, no longer have any idea what’s really going on, but be convinced this AI thing was overblown, and have no idea we’re being controlled.
I don’t think it will be quite that bad. Society worked before photography was invented and now we have cryptographic ways to make sure you’re really talking to the person you think you’re talking to.
I have a similar opininipn. People have been forging!/editing photographs and movies for as long as the technique existed.
Now any stupid kid can do it, the hard part with AI is actually not getting porn. If it can teach everyone that fake photo are a thing, and make nudes worthless (what’s the point of a nude anyway ? Genitals looks like… Genitals)
deleted by creator
