A.I. Is Making the Sexual Exploitation of Girls Even Worse
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
It makes good clickbait headline though.
Also there are existing laws for protecting against defamation.
Perhaps not, but ease of use really can be transformative on how something affects society. Especially since someone who has to spend years learning how to do something is less likely to do stupid shit with it than someone who just has to click a few buttons.
If anything, I would argue what increases devious interest in this topic is the media talking about it as if it was new. Thats a quick way to get a lot of people "involved" on both sides of the debate.
https://www.adobe.com/mena_en/creativecloud/photography/disc...
I used to do Photoshop image manipulation for work. Performing a convincing face swap with the tools mentioned in your article was difficult unless the light sources, face angles, and focal lengths of the cameras that took the photos happened to match very closely. You could paint in your own lighting if you were very skilled, but it's the sort of thing that took years of practice to get good at, and it still wasn't very convincing most of the time.
When you have a million images to pick from, getting a reasonable match is a lot easier.
You can do this for free from your phone on at least one website that I’m not going to keep repeating.
I had never heard of this world until seeing posts about it on HN and it was just today that I delved into the bowels of the internet to see how well it worked so I could talk intelligently about it.
Just use the existing laws and social norms to punish badly behaving teenagers, no need to invent new AI laws for that.
It was never as easy or happening with the scale or as easy to make it look realistic.
Doing that in Photoshop was not something the average middle schooler could do realistically - let alone ok their phone, for free
Yes, I had to do about 5 minutes research on the internet to figure it out.
This is the version on the App Store
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/promptai-girl-generator/id6469...
Because of Apple’s rules, it won’t let you “unclothe” pictures. But the website will.
As a 50 year old married dude who never delved into that side of the world (not claiming I’ve never looked at porn though), I didn’t know how convincing it could do it for adults with shadows, skin tones, etc.
Will you claim that, therefore, NO software can possibly have any societal impact? Because, after all, it’s already “possible” to do what that software does?
compare the same thing
I can't stand it when a boomer's version of a same service says "contact for quote", and the sales agent acts confused and perplexed about the term "self service" when you ask if such a thing is on the roadmap
(this wasn't about criminal websites, just self service e-commerce)
On the other end, speaking of exploitation and unrealistic expectations, she could also consume "female literature" in order to get more understanding about this whole thing.
It's the human/society psyche. It's all imagination, there is no Mickey Mouse, it's just a bunch drawings scrolling really fast.
Now it's "AI" because it has to be, it's the "hot" topic, before was videogames, before it was TV, music ( remember the 80s? ), the author is just doing her job, good for her. But there is nothing new or substantial about this.
and people with those mores will pay for a fantasy that doesn't include those mores
I see what you did there.
People (women and men, both with their own methods) are the root of the problem.
Remember: tech is never the issue. People are.
People killed other people long before guns were a thing
The deadliest school attack in US history was the Bath bombing, which did involve a gun, but most victims were not from it.
The common factor is mental health, not firearms.
The common factor is easy access to firearms. Every country has mentally ill people, every country has embittered people who are mad at the world, but only the United States has removed the restrictions on gun access which allow those people to engage in mass shootings. That started in the late 1970s and the contrast with our peers is staggering: Australia has many cultural similarities but they actually value life and tightened their gun control laws after the Port Arthur shooting, while we’ve loosened ours and have hundreds of thousands of more deaths.
A well-known example is Swisserland, where lots of people have guns but somehow do not use them to kill people.
Another well-known example is France, where people use knives to cut other people's heads.
And are you actually comparing a trained militia to randos buying military hardware without any accountability or oversight? Because generative AI isn't only accessible to trained and licensed practitioners, is it?
The US is not a good representation of the world.
"Trained militia", you mean every random citizens and its family (the guns are kept are home) ? Then yes, this is it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th...
At what point did ordinary people get easy access to weapons that have high capacity and rapid fire? That's when we see a rise in mass shootings. Today, ordinary people are getting access to tools which can quickly and easily make better fakes than experts with photoshop could do even 5 years ago.
Fix't that for you. Anything is a weapon. The resulting high score is merely a matter of practice. No exceptions.
But regulation of people's behaviour is how we deal with these things. There should be consequences for abusing other people no matter what tools you use.
If you're talking about banning AI ("AI apologists"?) then were do you draw the line? People use cars to kidnap children and rape and murder them, should be ban cars? AI has positive and negative uses just like cars.
So let me restate it a different way. I'm gravely concerned with the destructive potential of AI and the exploitation in this article is just one of hundreds of negative consequences. Yet advocates of AI are shitting on any attempt to constrain it, and instead are tripping over themselves to monetize it, risks be damned.
There are risks with AI as with anything, and there can be regulation of anything, it's just a question of what, which you don't go into a all.
To use your language: it seems you just want to shit on AI and people who want to use and develop it, and these victims are little more than a convenient sensation for you to push your pet peeve.
Neither do yours. Peace be upon you.
Are juvenile taunts really the best you can do?
For this particular article case, there is no need for new laws or rules. Just take the boys, give them a harsh warning, public humiliation and if it repeats then suspend from the school. Whether there is AI or no AI, it is irrelevant.
Whether this is relevant or not about the harms of social media is not related to the AI. If the article headline would be "social media gives new ways to bullying" it would be more to correct. However the article headline is about AI, and is thus a clickbait, and dishonest in its narrative.
Wouldn't it make it less of a problem? At some point people will just assume all of the photos are fake.
Worse, some of the options force criminal investigations. If they fake a video with an adult, now that kid has to deal with the police investigating a very sensitive topic. If they pick a teacher or family member, etc. that also means those people might have their jobs jeopardized and it could be very hard to disprove if the fakes don’t have obvious errors.