People on HN have a hard time understanding that the barrier to entry matters. Photoshop has existed for decades but the level of skill needed to make realistic looking nudes in Photoshop is not something your average freak with a fetish possesses. New technology puts that power into the hands of every single person.
It's not your average freak with a fetish that is even the primary issue. The volume will come from average anybody (although mostly men). That's the real problem. Random co-workers in the office that want to deepfake their crush. Your average teenage boy with a decent GPU that wants to deepfake their classmates just to experiment. There have already been several instances of this catching the news in Europe for example, so it's obviously going on globally.
Oh but the average guy isn't that perverted? Yes they are. We know this from the vast amount of porn they consume and of what type they consume.
Actually nailing someone for revenge porn or sexual harassment seems like a borderline impossible task for police departments if the person doing it has even a minor degree of anonymity. Enlarging the potential pool of people who can do this and the pool of victims they can target by an order of magnitude by lowering both the skill it took to make convincing fakes before and the time taken to make each fake doesn't seem to me like a good idea.
I could very well be wrong about this, and usually I fall more on the e/acc side, but I think deepfakes are perhaps the gravest immediate concern of AI. Yes, they've been around for well over a decade, but never before has their creation (& thus volume) been so accessible to the average layperson. A simple 10 minutes on CivitAI will tell you all you need to know about how prolific this problem is.
IMO it is only a matter of time before this same issue comes to the forefront in the US (I'm kinda surprised it hasn't already become a bigger topic). I could easily see custom celeb LORAs/emmbeddings and realistic SD/SDXL checkpoints being banned outright for this reason. Yes, it would be an infringement on free speech, but weighed against the interests & safety of the public, the courts might see a move like that as reasonable.
It's just the new reality. Porn is not even the worst thing. If anything it can make real photos/videos harder to get viral.
But augmentation will be (if not already is) used to make very tiny adjustments, like you make one candidate/celebrity face slightly more symmetrical and the other one less, change their gait just a little bit. These changes are non-perceptible, are not interesting enough to make a scandal, and they can have huge impact on how people perceive other people. I mean, I am not suggesting that it isn't a puppet show without those, but the game is evolving.
> ban photoshop all over again. It's just the new reality.
We didn't solve teens doctoring inappropriate images of their classmates by banning Photoshop or accepting it as the new normal. We solved it by passing laws which criminalise the behaviour and enforcing them to deter the behaviour.
Technology influences society. But plenty of social mores are almost universally respected despite being difficult to enforce. Possible and difficult to enforce doesn't force permissibility.
I was a teen post photoshop and it was just... never an issue. It never occured to me. No one ever mentioned it to me as a possibility. If someone did it would have struck me as weird and as way too much work. Photography class in school (in which we learned to use photoshop) didn't mention any acceptable use guidelines or anything. As far as I know no one in my school ever did anything distasteful with photoshop.
I don't accept the idea that "passing laws and enforcing them to deter behavior" was the cause of the lack of issues, because to be a deterrent us teens would have had to been aware of the laws.
> was a teen post photoshop and it was just... never an issue. It never occured to me
Same. And same.
Drawing inappropriate pictures of your classmates was creepy before. Making Photoshop or AI porn remains so now. Most people won't do it. But there is active social reinforcement that keeps it from becoming "the new reality."
> don't accept the idea that "passing laws and enforcing them to deter behavior" was the cause of the lack of issue
Fair enough.
The jargon was cyberbullying, and there was absolutely legislative activity around horrific examples. But the principal mechanism of action probably wasn't a direct fear of getting caught and punished, but the prompted discussion reinforcing and extending the norm.
Harassment is a lot narrower than people tend to think. It restricts people from makings communications that the subject does not want to be a recipient of. It does not restrict people communicating between each other about the subject. Abby following Jane around calling her fat is harassment if it is severe and pervasive. Abby and Betty texting each other, and talking to each other about how Jane is fat is not.
At least as far as criminal harassment goes. Schools can adopt more restrictive policies but the consequences would only be suspension, expulsion, etc. not criminal charges.
The takeway is that harassment laws restrict what people are saying to you, not what they're saying about you among each other.
If the police actually tried to prosecute them for harassment, the question the courts would be asking is, "could Jane reasonably avoid having to hear it?" Harassment is about being able to not be the recipient of communications you don't want to receive. Calling Jane fat on message boards, twitter, in a bar, etc. would all be fair game.
There's more restrictions if Jane is a captive audience. The courts have ruled that certain settings where people can't easily just leave - namely work and school - have greater restrictions. Again, the question the court would be asking is "can Jane reasonably avoid this speech" and it's a much bigger barrier to leave one's workplace than walk out of the bar.
This is just a certificate of authenticity that one either trusts or not, based on whatever one knows about secure enclaves, cryptography, or the device/person issuing the key/certificate.
I think the reality is that photographs and video are now like text, you trust the source or not.
I can write about Cleopatra's ability to snowboard and play Xbox, or I can make a photo with the caption "Cleopatra doing a 1080", and now I can make a video of it (probably).
I can also give you a certificate/key/blockchain whatever to prove it's "valid".
Photoshop was never built as an easy tool so powerful that even grandma can produce photo-realistic fake images in seconds. The new wave of AI powered editing tools are clearly on a new level.
This is like bringing your howitzer to a gun debate because they are kinda similar.
Generative AI is much easier than photoshop the same way that photoshop was much easier than trying to alter photos any other way. In both cases it is a completely new level.
A centrally-managed app will always be easier to use than a local self-service tool. But those local apps will keep trying to converge towards the ease of the hosted apps. Over time I expect the difference will become negligible (i.e. a 1-click install and it actually works)
Photoshopping something convincing has a much bigger bar to entry than (as far as I understand it) generation of deepfakes now. Lots of time/practice invested even for one convincing image.
From what I can see the issue here is that this problem with AI can potentially become much much more widespread because the amount of work required is pretty much none and gets lower as models get better. It sounds like someone using deepfakes to ie extort people can just cast a much wider net by just scraping/dumping masses of images into a generator to create a multitude of convincing pictures of many different people instead of having to focus their time and effort on picking a single target and creating fakes manually.
I think most women aren't on board with people drawing erotic pictures of them with pen and paper either. I think most women aren't on board with their peers fantasizing about them - even if it's completely limited to their imagination.
No believe me I know, I have heard women talking about this coming for years. It was already a very common harassment technique before AI made it free, easy, and accessible.
You can tell how few women are involved at the key stages of building new tech because of how rarely obvious harassment vectors are accounted for during development.
The problem I have is with trying to get men to care about it because it affects their daughter or whatever.
>You can tell how few women are involved at the key stages of building new tech because of how rarely obvious harassment vectors are accounted for during development
Interesting point to think about- it certainly would have helped. But I also genuinely don't see how someone developing this kind of technology, who has had even a brief glimpse of online culture any point in the last 20 years, didn't immediately see what it would be used for. It almost feels like "progress" with malicious intent. Or an extreme case of apathy towards societal consequences.
>The problem I have is with trying to get men to care about it because it affects their daughter or whatever.
Lot of people are too self centered to care about any issue unless it directly impacts them. If it gets people thinking about how it affects their loved ones I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
> If it gets people thinking about how it affects their loved ones I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
It's just shitty both to men and women. Men don't care about an issue unless it affects their daughters? They don't have other women they care about? Mothers, friends, mentors? Or for that matter sons who are also vulnerable to abuse and manipulation? The men I know are better than this.
And it positions women as being just a motivation for the actions of men, whose right relationship is to be protected rather than being actors in their own right. If you find this tactic sound then feel free to use it but I think there are better ways.
I get where you are coming from. The original poster could have phrased it better.
But it's an issue that has both then and now predominantly affected mostly women. Sadly I reckon many men will not care about it, or even be aware of the issue, until it impacts a woman they know.
> The problem I have is with trying to get men to care about it because it affects their daughter or whatever.
Sorry, this is a retarded point of view. You literally are saying you have a problem with people taking action against nonconsensual digital pornography, because it affects and angers people they love.
B. To restate, heaven forbid a man take action based on what people he loves would want. All motives must be purely self-satisfying, or purely driven by the affected.
South Korea has a very bad gender relations problem partially stemming from an extremely lopsided gender ratio. In the 90s it reached as high as 115 male children to 100, and now all those extra young men are angry adults. https://theconversation.com/south-koreas-gender-imbalance-is...
I don't think of myself as on the e/acc side, but I think that deepfakes are here to stay and we'll just have to get used to them. I don't see any way to put the genie back in the bottle but I also don't think it'll take that long to adapt.
Fair point, technologists will always innovate faster than politicians are able to regulate. Cat's outta the bag now, but that only means the problem will continue to escalate until more drastic measures are deemed necessary.
It's that or we will come to accept some level of societal degradation due to the abuse/misuse of AI tools becoming normalized.
As AI image generation (and soon video generation) gets to be a more saturated space, we will end up in the state that you cannot trust anything you see online, even if you are educated, well-informed, and meticulously research the topic.
It has already been inching that way for a long time, but generative AI definitely is adding new fuel to the fire.
I mean, you already kind of cannot trust anything you see online, it's just that so many people still haven't got the message. Maybe everyone needs a deepfake porno of themselves sent to them so they finally grok that everything online should be by default considered fake.
A head attached to a fake body as prevalent as a click, nobody cares. 2 years back it would be, but like I said nobody will gaf once every one and their mom can have their heads attached to any body
> I could very well be wrong about this, and usually I fall more on the e/acc side, but I think deepfakes are perhaps the gravest immediate concern of AI.
I don't think they're a concern at all, other than that they will ruin the evidentiary value of photographs. They'll do that whether or not the general public has access to them.
The concern about fake pictures of people naked is stupid. The same process mentioned above happens to naked pictures of people: they lose evidentiary value. General access to the ability to make deepfakes not only makes it so people won't believe what they see now, but also won't believe actual revenge porn. It simply ceases to be a problem. You can claim it's a fake, and no one can disprove it. This is a reason for celebration.
The standard response for that has been for people to simply claim that it won't matter, and that people will destroy the life of some young innocent girl if a mean boy spreads fake pictures of her naked. The answer is that people who harass a young girl are guilty of harassment, and should be jailed. You shouldn't be harassing people even if naked pictures of them are real, which they often are. And if you'd attack a person over pictures that you could fake up yourself in five minutes, you're either a) a moron or b) somebody using the photos as an excuse, and it would be a benefit for society for you to be locked away from it.
I suspect a lot of people really worried about deepfake porn deep down are worried about their ability to properly identify and harass the harlots if people won't believe the pictures that you send to their family and friends anymore. From my perspective, they're literally fighting to preserve revenge porn.
> The concern about fake pictures of people naked is stupid. The same process mentioned above happens to naked pictures of people: they lose evidentiary value.
This is too narrow: it presumes rational contexts where evidence will be evaluated critically, and it assumes a mild, uncreative attacker but harassers are good at exploiting social norms. The damage caused by this kind of harassment isn’t seeing yourself nude as much as wondering or knowing what other people will think, and there’s no way to undo that. Even if people _say_ they believe that the pictures are fake, the victim may be wondering whether that’s really true for the rest of their life.
The other thing to think about is that we’re really just getting started. Most of the deepfakes which the average person has seen are fairly mainstream porn nudes: there’s a huge control issue but in general there are worse things than people thinking you have a star’s body. We’re going to see those worse things soon: it won’t be a porn fantasy but things designed to degrade and more targeted - if the target had body issues, exaggerating them; punishing the person who rejected someone by faking them looking not like a porn star but less attractive and having degrading sex with someone unpopular, knowing that a bunch of people are going to think “well, he would say that”; make some teacher’s life hell by faking them having sex with a student; etc.
Because the attacks are being directed by humans, they’re going to adjust and find what works. Anything which forces an official investigation is going to be especially bad because we can’t just ignore things like child abuse so it’s going to be like SWATing where there’s an ugly period where the wrong teenager can get an incredibly high-leverage response with a single message.
> make some teacher’s life hell by faking them having sex with a student;
The harm comes from falsely accusing someone of rape, not the deepfake itself. This can be done with or without a deepfake.
As a counterpoint: if a group of boys find their teacher is really hot and they use Stable Diffusing inpaint her clothes to create a fictional naked photo, where's the harm? They could also just use their imaginations to fantasize about what she'd look naked. I don't really see that much different - they're essentially delegating the imagination to the computer.
The typical response is that if the teacher discovers these photos, that discovery could be disturbing for her. I do agree. But at the same time, if these boys walk up to her and tell her "I just jacked off to fantasies of you last night", that's also probably disturbing too. Like the first scenario, the deepfake is tangential to the actual harm: the harm stems from telling another person that you've fantasized about them sexually - not the exact nature of whether that fantasy was produced by a human brain or a silicon one.
> The harm comes from falsely accusing someone of rape, not the deepfake itself. This can be done with or without a deepfake.
The person I was responding to said they were not “a concern at all”, but clearly that can’t be true if they make harassment and false accusations easier and more damaging. Similarly, we shouldn’t dismiss the impact of making those attacks stronger - it’s like saying that giving a kid a gun is no big deal because they used to have a slingshot.
You missed the reason why I mentioned that scenario. It’s not just that the targeted teacher gets harassed — and, let’s be honest, that’d be a lot of aggression just below the threshold of serious disciplinary measures – but that something like that would if found trigger a mandatory law enforcement response. School employees tend to be mandatory reporters so they don’t have the option of saying “that’s a fake, he’s probably lying”.
The real harm is that unless it’s a very obvious fake, the victim is going to have to go through a police investigation into their personal life. Want to bet that’d especially be used to target people who have reason not to trust the police because they’re gay, brown, not an evangelical Christian, etc.?
Women get fired from jobs for naked photos of them leaking - photos obtained through illicit means, photos taken consensually or even selfies not shared with anyone in particular.
As long as it looks convincing, when deepfakes start circulating like this, the object of the deepfake will face consequences far in excess of what you are suggesting. Hell, some parts of the country even obvious deepfakes may get a woman in trouble. Any woman, not just a teacher.
Again, the harm comes from dishonesty not the deepfake itself. Calling someone's employer and falsely accusing them of stealing from their past companies or abusing their co-workers achieves the same purpose. If a company fires an employee because of fictional content, the blame lies with the company.
I think the problem is that people aren't necessarily logical or rational about such things. I know someone (family friend) who was the victim of similar harassment with (clearly) photoshopped images being sent anonymously to her work, family, friends on social media. The fact that they were fake didn't diminish the humiliation or stress she went through and I don't think she ever really recovered from the trauma of having some anonymous asshole harassing and stalking her and her family online. It eventually stopped but she was afraid of it starting again for a long time. "It's fake" isn't much of a comfort to someone being harassed and being afraid of harassment escalating in one way or another. And it getting easier and easier for crazy people to do this with less and less effort doesn't help the issue at all regardless of what laws are passed. Finding better ways to deal with these people is a good thing but enabling them to make it easier isn't, in my opinion.
I think for a lot of people it's easy to die on the hill of technological progress and freedom at any cost when the consequences haven't happened to you or a loved one.
We definitely need to crack down more on harassment and stalking and not worry so much about what form that harassment and stalking takes. It's insane that you can have someone all over you, sending you unwanted messages, following you, or generally targeting you with misery that falls short of physical assault, and the police won't do anything about it until you're physically hurt. It shouldn't matter if the harassment is phone calls at 4AM or deepfakes. Harassment is harassment.
I agree. But the internet age feels like it unfortunately has made this much more difficult than it should be. People over share on social media and make themselves too visible because they aren't aware of the consequences- or don't assume there are people out there sociopathic enough to harass someone to that extent. The pool of potential suspects when they're acting anonymously has grown from whoever is in your local community to whoever has an internet connection in the world. Not uncommon to hear of such harassment, blackmailing cases and such where the perpetrator doesn't even live in your own country where police could do anything about it even if they had their name and real evidence.
This is going to be a monumental issue when the fact that we can't trust any photographs fully takes hold. Maybe watermarking will help with that. More likely people will develop tools to circumvent watermarking technology (either on the imprinting side, or on the verification side).
> people won't believe what they see now, but also won't believe actual revenge porn. It simply ceases to be a problem.
This may be a comforting way to think about it, but it won't work in all cases. Consider instead of revenge porn, the case of CSAM – that will never be a solved problem until 100% of it is wiped from the face of the earth and it is never produced again. Making it less believable because there is so much AI-generated equivalents out there is a not a solution to the problem, it exacerbates the problem.
> when the fact that we can't trust any photographs fully takes hold
Full faith in photography was never a thing. If anything, the advent of photography came alongside yellow journalism. Trust is an institution. You can't build institution on solely technology.
Good context. But the fact is, a great many people – perhaps even the majority of people – are quite used to looking at a photograph and fully trusting that it depicts something which actually happened. As they say, seeing is believing.
Even with CGI being what it has been since the 70s, it's still appropriate to apply Occam's Razor in many cases, and to simply say that because it looks real, it probably is.
I think freedom of speech is mainly about freedom of thought and just plain freedom, and the ability to criticize the government is a side benefit. And that it should also include the freedom to augment our imaginations with the prosthetics of our choice.
> Freedom of speech is mainly so that we can criticize the government
Freedom of speech is a bigger concept than the First Amendment. Technically curtailing one's ability to make AI porn of your colleagues is a restriction on speech. That said, so is every spam filter, fraud statute and retaliation against a declaration of war. A right doesn't have to be absolute to be good (or vice versa).
Freedom of speech is against government intervention, not against private agreements.
Rather in fact an absolute form of freedom of speech would protect against the government from stopping you from forwarding all your correspondence to someone else, and would protect against the government stopping that someone else from removing the spam and sending the rest back to you. Non-government run spam filters aren't just not offending freedom of speech, they are protected by it.
> Freedom of speech is against government intervention, not against private agreements
You're conflating the First Amendment and freedom of speech [1]. If you're in my house and I prohibit you from expressing certain views, that is fine by the First Amendment but not in the spirit of free speech.
No I'm not. You're conflating freedom of speech with a duty to listen. Freedom of speech entails a freedom to send spam. It doesn't entail a duty to receive spam, to read spam, to not have someone else filter your communications for spam, etc.
And as I argued above, since every step in having someone filter your communications for spam is simply speech, it protects spam filters.
You restricted it to "government intervention, not...private agreements." The freedom of speech extends to the private sphere.
> You're conflating freedom of speech with a duty to listen
These are inextricably linked in the classical form. In the Athenian tradition, there was a duty to listen [1]. (Though even then practicality made it far from absolute.) That traces through to the Protestation of 1621 [2] and the Founders' debates around the First Amendment (namely, between Madison and Hamilton).
Practically, of course, no duty is absolute. But a society where everyone screams into a void isn't adhering to the principles of free speech and expression. (I'll note that alongside the duty to listen is an implied duty on the part of the speaker to speak truly [3]. Spam is the epitome of the cessation of the latter revoking the former.)
I think you're confusing something along the lines of "parliamentary privilege" for freedom of speech. Various forms of government have imposed as part of their decision making process a duty to listen to various forms of official speech. That's not a component of freedom of speech though, rather it's a component of that specific form of governments process.
I'm not sure where you find a duty to listen in Athens, my best guess is you are pointing to the duty to attend the assembly, which fits this form of "parliamentary privilege" rather than a broader duty to listen. To contrast, by my understanding political commentary in the form of plays and the like were quite common in Athenian culture, and I'm fairly sure there was absolutely no duty to pay attention to those. I'd also note that even with the assembly "the crowd might raise a clamor and refuse to listen to a speaker advocate an unpopular proposal" (your source) which suggests little duty to actively listen even there.
The protestation of 1621 is directly related to parliamentary privilege (and why I labelled this the way I did, though I don't think the label fits perfectly, since it applies to many smaller government meetings than parliament).
I can't say I'm familiar with the first amendment debate you are discussing.
> You restricted it to "government intervention, not...private agreements."
I don't think this is the cause of our disagreement, but I'll grant you that that phrase was slightly inartful. E.g. there are authorities other than governments, like a local gang, who could impinge on freedom of speech with threats of retaliation, and to the extent that private agreements are enforced by an authority it's possible for them to do so.
> you're confusing something along the lines of "parliamentary privilege" for freedom of speech
Technically, parliamentary privilege derives from the Athenian model of freedom of expression. In the case of the latter, the privilege (and duty) extended to the whole demos. Politics were never “off.” (Well, unless you were a child. Or a woman. Or a slave. Or a foreigner.)
One can trace it from there to the Roman Republic, and most pointedly, from folks in the early Empire lamenting how private society proactively narrowed the Overton window to align with perceptions of Imperial preference. (The Senate floor was muzzled by dissuading private criticism, officially and informally.)
Those “classics” then went to England and France, and then to America and Europe’s colonies, and then to the UN and EU. TL; DR Freedom of expression in Western thought as I understand it.
> which suggests little duty to actively listen even there
It was generally notable enough to be recorded, which suggests a general restraint. Not an absolute duty. But more than a little.
> don't think this is the cause of our disagreement
I don’t actually think we disagree :). We just know more about different aspects of the same thing.
Information intentionally communicated by a person to another is speech by the strictest classical definition. (I guess technically the creation of the AI porn isn't speech in the way a falling tree in a deserted forest doesn't make a perceived sound. But it's a schoolyard riddle for a reason.)
Freedom of speech is there to protect objectionable/offensive speech, whether it is directed towards the government or otherwise. Objectionable speech is frequently in the crosshairs of pro-censorship folks, and many people think of deepfakes as objectionable – reasonably so.
I feel as though I'm the only one who doesn't care about this.
Curious to know if 20-30 years ago, as graphic design tools got better, were people freaking out about being able to superimpose another person's face on a the body of p*rnstar?
Superimposing people's faces on to porn star's bodies happened/s, but does anyone care really even notice or care about it now days? For the most part, of course not.
So why should we care about porn videos? What makes them so different? The whole concern smells like typical media hype (i.e. yay - we get to write about AI + Porn - instant clickbait) that nobody will be able to stop and nobody will even care about in 1-2 years: e.g. "oh, yah, another deepfake of <(politician|actress|colleague^)> in a porn film - how incredibly creative".
^ Incidentally, this was made light of in the British version of The Office where a modified image of the boss, David Brent, was sent around the office. If it's joked about harmlessly on mainstream TV, it's probably not a huge concern.
It's more problematic than photoshopping a person's face was decades ago because we didn't have pervasive online social media decades ago. Computers weren't in your pocket, and an offending image couldn't be beamed to everyone you know instantly.
> If it's joked about harmlessly on mainstream TV, it's probably not a huge concern.
There are plenty of mainstream TV jokes about horrendous things. Our ability to joke about something is a poor way to gauge how concerned we should be.
> an offending image couldn't be beamed to everyone you know instantly
Is your concern that recipients would think it's real? Or is it that people will get an email/chat message containing NSFW material? (because the latter happens now, and is nothing more than background noise at most). What is your actual, specific concern? (genuinely, I have no idea, but want to try to understand - to me it feels like panic about a problem that isn't actually a real problem).
I'm not sure what my personal concerns are specifically, so I don't have a good answer to that question.
But I think there's a difference between a crud photoshop picture that a person has on their PC, and a (more or less) convincing deepfake video of a person being broadcast.
I think you're likely right that there is an element of panic. I don't know a lot about Korean culture, but I imagine the concern is that deepfakes can have real-life negative impact on people's lives, either because people think it's real or because it creates a hyper-sexualised social environment that endangers women. Both are worthy of concern in my view.
Photoshop has for decades been able to produce fake images indistinguishable from real life.
There's still no case for why fake video is apparently so much worse than fake images. Both achieve the same effects when sent maliciously to a relative or contacts list.
I'll (try to) steelman the case for why video's worse: because people don't realise how easy fake videos are to make. But in 1-2 years... meh... most of society will have it figured out.
Subheading on this describes the story a bit better:
South Korea’s national assembly on Thursday passed a Bill to punish people possessing, purchasing, saving or viewing deepfake sexual materials and other fabricated videos.
> now we have a healthy distrust of pictures we're not sure where they came from.
Respectfully, we only wish this were the case. There are, right now, AI generated images and videos of a presidential candidate in a disaster area. People want to believe they are real. And so to millions of people, they are real.
People do the same with faked nudes. They will believe in those nudes because they believe that women are inherently sinful (huzzah for "original sin") and absolutely would do such things.
Oh, and Photoshop never had a dedicated app (or 100 dedicated apps) for creating nudes from regular photos and/or videos. It took a skill a scant fraction of a percent of people had.
When I grew up, my friends dad had a picture taken of his British public school class taken circa 1955. In this photo, which was taken by a slowly rotating panorama camera, a lad started at the beginning of the photo, on the viewers left. Once the camera panned enough that he was out of frame, he sprinted behind the bleachers to the viewers far right, and took his place on the bleachers before the camera panned to take his picture for a second time.
Kindly, if you grew up after this picture was taken, and you believed the guideline “a photo never lies,” you were wrong.
I should have remembered that I'm writing to an audience prone to passionate literalism...
I'm of course aware that there were forged photos back in the day. But they were rare and hard to make. They were usually paper only. Producing a fake negative was really hard, and a forensic expert could often spot it.
Makes sense and I can see this becoming a global trend if it's not already. But the irony of the news agency taking and posting their photo/video is a facepalm.
EDIT: I can foresee a dark future where surveillance video is monetized for such salacious purpose and it becomes inescapable as the cameras are everywhere.
Could be worse than that. With all of the facial recognition and videoing that's going on by the government, if the police wanted to, they could insert you into any footage committing any crimes they want.
I feel like this is a problem without a solution, or at least without a solution more expensive than the problem:
* I suspect that, like prohibition or DMCA, criminalizing behavior will lead to worse outcomes than accepting deepfake porn sometimes happens, at least if laws are passed targeting this in isolation.
* I suspect that before acceptance, many people will be harmed, on both sides. Humiliated teen girls. Immature hormone-driven teen boys.
* I suspect that we'll see a range of bigger problems such as real scams where, for example, a deepfake child calls their elderly parents and empties their bank account. Or, perhaps, a deepfake general calls someone in a nuclear bunker.
* Deepfakes are at the tip of technological problems which need solving. We have other things, like the cheap and easy availability of technology to make the next Covid-19. The point is we have the technology to make it in a lab, and the price point is going down by an almost Moore's Law like curve.
I don't see a good solution short of completely rethinking democracy and capitalism from scratch. The first time around took the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Revolution.
It's perhaps time to do that.
Prove me wrong. Seriously. If there are incremental solutions which stop deepfake porn, deepfake scams, personal drone strikes, and super-viruses, please let me know what they are.
I honestly don’t understand the problem with deepfake porn. It’s the same as a fantasy you might have in your head about someone you know. As long as it is not passed off as real, which might be defamatory, I don’t have a moral problem with it. My bigger concern is that a sudden spike in puritanism is going to be used to justify limitations on free speech - which is what a lot of AI regulation is.
> As long as it is not passed off as real, which might be defamatory
That’s basically it. AI is extremely accessible and still relatively unknown. Virtually anyone can create a deepfake photo for free in seconds, post it anywhere and a lot of people will assume it is genuine.
I find deepfakes inherently non-sexy. The whole point of a nude or porn is to reveal something hidden accurately, what’s the point if it is just made up?
Right now you can generate hundreds of realistic fake nudes of celebrity XYZ and no one cares. Celebrity XYZ accidentally leaks a nude photo from their phone and the entire world loses their mind.
I think after the initial moral panic and once the novelty wears off, this issue will fade into obscurity. And currently existing laws should cover sharing such imagery/videos anyway.
I think the point is often to harm/exert control over the person depicted, e.g. when boys are making deepfake nudes of girls at their school, as happened in Spain and the USA recently.
What are your thoughts on hentai then? It's all made up after all.
Meta-point is that different people get off on different things, so using seemingly objective language ("the whole point of A is B") to describe something extremely subjective is imo counterproductive.
Some people don't care about the fakery and are happy with a low quality way to beat off.
Other people don't care because their goal is not to get aroused but to embarrass the persons whose real faces have been faked onto the AI-generated or AI-edited porno footage.
Some people say 'logically we all know it is fake so just ignore it'. This demonstrates something of a lack of imagination, an inability to picture oneself or a beloved family member being put in that position. It also overlooks that different societies have different social standards and that social mobs tend toward the lowest common IQ denominator.
South Korea is a very conservative society, whether you agree with this conservatism or not. Being in a deepfake is easily enough to ruin a person's social or professional reputation, and schoolchildren are especially vulnerable to such pressures. It's not so different from the US problem with sextortion, where teens are tricked into sending nudes to an apparent romantic prospect, and then blackmailed. In both countries, such abuse can end in suicide.
In even more conservative countries like Islamic societies, the victims of such fakes could conceivably suffer criminal penalties if authorities don't believe (or deliberately subvert) their protestations of innocence.
> Being in a deepfake is easily enough to ruin a person's social or professional reputation
This is the problem with Korea, not deepfakes. That they have US-adjacent employment laws, and will fire people based on arbitrary anonymous bile. This shouldn't happen even when the photos are real. The idea that women who have been naked shouldn't work is repulsive.
Don't you think it's just a bit arrogant to say 'you should change your whole culture to accommodate this technology'? I don't care for SK's social conservatism either, but 'your society is wrong' is not a helpful response to people who don't want to be hassled by deepfake makers. Frankly I'm surprised that the conservative SK government is taking the issue seriously enough to legislate on it.
reply