How do you deal with the same in Photoshop?
> How do you deal with the same in Photoshop?
You're making a false equivalence. "AI" image generation is so much easier to do and requires so much less skill than Photoshopping something that you're really dealing with an entirely different problem.
And Photoshop is so much easier to do and requires much less skill than carving marble statues.
I say we also ban Photoshop and only allow chisels and stones.
You are frankly missing the point. The issue isn't easier, the issue is crossing a threshold of easiness or scalability that means the problems can't be managed the same way as they were in the past.
For instance: the problem of revenge porn was severely limited before cameras existed, before the internet made mass distribution of photos effortless, and before image search engines made them easy to find. Digital cameras + internet distribution + search engines removed technological limiting factors, and made the problem significantly more severe and widespread. That change in severity lead to new legislation.
But with digital camera photos, there are limiting factors that make individual-infraction level enforcement possible: the perpetrator needs some physical access to the victim such that the victim usually knows who took the photo. Generative AI even removes that limitation.
That might no mean anything should change, but it does mean "LOL. I can find similarities between the processes so they're the same," isn't a reasonable response.
Back in 2005 or so, kuro5hin (a now gone discussion site) closed signups because somebody photoshopped the founder's wife's head onto some porn. That was 18 years ago.
True, doing it with Photoshop took a bit of skill, but it is a skill a lot of people have, for whom it would be doable in minutes. For a newbie, figuring out Stable Diffusion is probably more work than figuring out how to do it in Photoshop.
And IMO the training argument is long term a pointless waste of time.
It's perfectly clear if you realize similar is not same.
> Back in 2005 or so, kuro5hin (a now gone discussion site) closed signups because somebody photoshopped the founder's wife's head onto some porn. That was 18 years ago.
So what? Everyone here understands that's possible. If you think that example somehow addresses the concern, you missed the point.
> True, doing it with Photoshop took a bit of skill, but it is a skill a lot of people have, for whom it would be doable in minutes.
Also, IIRC, that particular Photoshop of Rusty's wife was terrible, as in obvious.
The skill "a lot of people have" is to make bad photoshops. Generative AI has the ability to near-effortlessly make high-resolution ones that most people could confuse for a real photo.
> For a newbie, figuring out Stable Diffusion is probably more work than figuring out how to do it in Photoshop.
Again, what quality can a newbie achieve with photoshop after a couple days effort? And how long will Stable Diffusion be hard to setup? You do realize someone's going to come up with an easy-to-run "revengeporn.exe" sooner rather than later?
The answer is a better quality than if they are trying to figure out stable diffusion.
Prove it. Give some newbie Photoshop and a week of time, and show me how well they can Photoshop the face of a particular person (say Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture) onto some porn.
Is this a reasonable summary?
> AI = easy, so it should be regulated. It has passed the "threshold of simplicity" (and realism) where new legislation should be enacted.
> Photoshop = harder, so it should not be legislated.
If so, what happens when Photoshop releases a "copy/paste a face" feature (a desired general photo editing capability) that uses GenAI to merge background, skin tone, lighting, etc.? That could easily be a beginner-level feature (ctrl-c/ctrl-v with auto-segmentation) and be used to create porn.
Are you proposing that the feature be regulated because it's become too easy? That artificial barriers of difficulty be implemented?
Again, what are you proposing be the outcome?
Literally all some kid has to do is use the Photoshop magic wand feature to copy someone's face and post it on another image.
High schoolers don't care about the difference. They'll harass the target just as much if those kinds of pictures show up around school.
And that would only take a couple minutes to produce.
High schoolers don't need a 3000$ gaming computer, and the skills of figuring out how a GitHub repo and install process works to harass their fellow students.
You are entirely confused about what the problem is here. Slight differences in technology are not the cause of the problem of sexual harassment.
Do it, show me the results.
> High schoolers don't care about the difference. They'll harass the target just as much if those kinds of pictures show up around school.
You're moving the goalposts. I don't care if highschoolers will run with obvious, low quality crap. In fact, throughout this whole conversation, I didn't have highschoolers harassing each other on my mind at all. I was thinking about the more general problem, which includes things like harassing exes and potential employers coming across pictures during a job search.
> which includes things like harassing exes and potential employers
You are completely missing the point. Also, your repeated requests that I engage in sexual harassment is weird.
The damage of sexually harassing messages being sent to your friends and families can be just as damaging regardless of whatever small quality issues that you think exist.
You are confused about what the issue is. People are still significantly harmed via this harassment, even if there are quality issues. The "accuracy" isn't the determining factor here. Instead, it is the sexually harassment messages and images being spammed to people surrounding the victim.
It's a problem software engineers (or some superset that contains them) seem particularly prone to.