I truly wonder what "unsafe" scenarios an image generator could be used for? Don't we already have software that can do pretty much anything if a professional human is using it?
But giving that ability to _everyone_ will lead to a huge increase in undesirable and targeted/local behaviour.
Presumably it enables any creep to generate what they want by virtue of being able to imagine it and type it, rather than learn a niche skill set or employ someone to do it (who is then also complicit in the act)
Why don't you just say you believe thought crime should be punishable?
Or maybe not. It's hard to tell when nobody seems to want to spell out what behaviors we want to prevent.
Where are the Americans asking about Snapchat? If I were a developer at Scnapchat I could prolly open a few Blob Storage accounts and feed a darknet account big enough to live off of. You people are so manipulatable.
If yes, why doesn't the same law apply to AI? If no, why are we only concerned about it when AI is involved?
Second, the tool will become available to anyone, anywhere, not just a localised school. If generating naughty nudes is frowned upon in one place, another will have no qualms about it. And that's just things that are about decency, then there's the discussion about legality.
Finally, when person A draws a picture, they are responsible for it - they produced it. Not the party that made the pencil or the paper. But when AI is used to generate it, is all of the responsibility still with the person that entered the prompt? I'm sure the T's and C's say so, but there may still be lawsuits.
Feel free to make an AI model that does almost anything, though I'd probably suggest that it doesn't make porn of minors as that is criminal in most jurisdiction, short of that it's probably not a criminal offense.
Most companies are only very slightly worried about criminal offenses, they are far more concerned about civil trials. There is a far lower requirement for evidence. AI creator in email "Hmm, this could be dangerous". That's all you need to lose a civil trial.
Nah, I think it's a disagreement over whether a tool's maker gets blamed for evil use or the tool's user.
It's a similar argument over whether or not gun manufacturers should have any liability for their products being used for murder.
This is really only a debate in the US and only because it's directly written in the constitution. Pretty much no other product works that way.
Affordable drawing classes and YouTube drawing tutorials lower the barrier of entry as well.
Why on earth would manufacturers of pencils, papers, drawing classes, and drawing software feel responsible for censoring the result of combining their tool with the brain of their customer?
A sharp kitchen knife significantly lowers the barrier of entry to murder someone. Many murders are committed everyday using a kitchen knife. Should kitchen knife manufacturers blog about this every week?
I guess my point is that I don't think we're as inconsistent as a society as it seems when considering things like knives. It's not even strictly limited to thought crimes/information crimes. If alcohol were discovered today , I have no doubt that it would be banned and made schedule I
Fun fact: Many scanners and photocopiers will detect that you're trying to scan/copy a banknote and will refuse to complete the scan. One of the ways is detecting the EURion Constellation.
I'd guess that stability is concerned with their legal liability, also perhaps they are decent humans who don't want to make a product that is primarily used for harassment (whether they are decent humans or not, I imagine it would affect the bottom line eventually if they develop a really bad rep, or a bunch of politicians and rich people are targeted by deepfake harassment).
[1] https://www.cagoldberglaw.com/states-with-revenge-porn-laws/...
^ a lot of, but not all of those laws seem pretty specific to photographs/videos that were shared with the expectation of privacy and I'm not sure how they would apply to a painting/drawing, and I certainly don't know how the courts would handle deepfakes that are indistinguishable from genuine photographs. I imagine juries might tend to side with the harassed rather than a bully who says "it's not illegal cause it's actually a deepfake but yeah i obviously intended to harass the victim"
> The Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning that the government could not prohibit speech merely because of its tendency to persuade its viewers to engage in illegal activity.[6] It ruled that the CPPA was substantially overbroad because it prohibited material that was neither obscene nor produced by exploiting real children, as Ferber prohibited.[6] The court declined to reconsider the case en banc.[7] The government asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and it agreed, noting that the Ninth Circuit's decision conflicted with the decisions of four other circuit courts of appeals. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit.
To spell out one such instance: I would like to live in a world where it is not trivial to depict and misrepresent me (or anyone) in a way that is photorealistic to the point that it can be used to mislead others.
Whether that means we need to outright prevent it, or have some kind of authenticity mechanism, or some other yet-to-be-discovered solution? I do not know, but you now have my goalposts.
In a large number of countries if you create an image that represents a minor in a sexual situation you will find yourself on the receiving side of the long arm of the law.
If you are the maker of an AI model that allows this, you will find yourself on the receiving side of the long arm of the law.
Moreso, many of these companies operate in countries where thought crime is illegal. Now, you can argue that said companies should not operate in those countries, but companies will follow money every time.
This is not obvious at all when it comes to AI models.
>People are such authoritarian shit-stains
Yes, but this is a different conversation altogether.