Police investigation remains open. The photo of one of the minors included a fly; that is the logo of Clothoff, the application that is presumably being used to create the images, which promotes its services with the slogan: “Undress anybody with our free service!”

  • alvvayson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s one blessing coming out of that mess, though: For girls who did take pictures, and had them leaked, saying “they’re AI generated” is becoming a plausible way out.

    Indeed, once the AI gets good enough, the value of pictures and videos will plummet to zero.

    Ironically, in a sense we will revert back to the era before photography existed. To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on witness testimony.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed, once the AI gets good enough, the value of pictures and videos will plummet to zero.

      This just isn’t true. They will still be used to sexualise people, mostly girls and women, against their consent. It’s no different from AI-generated child pornography. It does harm even if no ‘real’ people appear in the images.

      Fucking horrible world we’re forced to live in. Where’s the fucking exit?

      • GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is different than AI-generated CSAM because real people are actually being harmed by these deepfake images.

        • JoBo@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I was replying to someone who was claiming they aren’t harmful as long as everyone knows they’re fake. Maybe nitpick them, not me?

          Reak kids are harmed by AI CSAM normalising a problem they should be seeking help for, not getting off on.

            • JoBo@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not getting beyond your first sentence here. I am not interested in what fucked up laws have been passed. Nor in engaging with someone who wants to argue that any form of child porn is somehow OK.

            • JoBo@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No I didn’t. Go nitpick someone else.

              Or better still, explain why you think AI-generated CSAM isn’t harmful. FFS

              • SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Let’s be real here:

                Sure, it’s not illegal. But if I find “those kinds” of AI-generated images on someone’s phone or computer, the fact that it’s AI-generated will not improve my view of that person in any possible way.

                Even if it’s technically “legal”.

                They tellin’ on themselves.

            • Ataraxia@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              People who consume any kind of cp are dangerous and encouraging thar behavior is just as criminal. I’m glad that shit is illegal in most civilized countries.

        • JoBo@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How is this place infested with so many fucking nonces?

          I made no claims about “more harm” so what imaginary claim are you referring to in your attempt to justify CSAM?

    • taladar@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on witness testimony.

      This is not going to work. Just because images and videos become less reliable that doesn’t mean we will forget about the fact that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable.

      • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        You say “forget” like it’s not still incredibly common as evidence.

        There’s lots of data showing that eyewitnesses aren’t reliable but that doesn’t mean courts actually stopped relying on it. Ai making another form of evidence untrustworthy will result in eyewitnesses taking its place.

    • hansl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      A bit off topic, but I wonder if the entertainment industry as a whole is going to be completely destroyed by AI when it gets good enough.

      I can totally see myself prompting “a movie about love in the style of Star Wars, with Ryan Gosling and Audrey Hepburn as the leads, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, written by Vincent Hugo.” And then what? It’s game over for any content creation.

      Curious if I’ll see that kind of power at home (using open source tools) in my lifetime.

      • Benj1B@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I envisage a world where your browsing Netflix, and based on past preferences some of the title cards are generated on the fly for you. Then based on what you click, the AI engine warms us and generates the film for you in real-time. Essentially indistinguishable from the majority of Hollywood regurgitation.

        And because the script is just a series of autogenerated prompts, its like a choose your own adventure book, you can steer the narrative the way you want if you elect to. Otherwise it’ll be good enough to keep most monkey brains happy and you won’t even be able to tell the difference most of the time.

      • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I know it’s impossible to perfectly predict future technology, but I believe AI will exist alongside traditional filmmaking. You’ll NEVER get something with the emotional impact of Up or Schindler’s List from an AI. You’ll be able to make fun action or fantasy movies though, and like you said, fully customized for the viewer. I imagine it’ll be like CGI vs traditional animation now - you only see the latter for passion projects, but for most uses, CGI works well enough.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is already starting to happen for digital illustration. With better models and enough images saved, you can already train a model to replicate the art created by an artist.

        • 𝕽𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖎𝖊𝖘𝖙@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not so much replicate as simulate or produce art on the style of that artist.

          AI can’t replicate a piece of art unless it’s only trained on that one piece of art, at which point you don’t need an AI to make a copy anyway.

          If you trained an AI on two paintings by the same artist, it will never produce either original painting, only blends of the two.

    • sv1sjp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thats why we need Blockchain Technology…

      Check Blockchain Camera for example: https://github.com/sv1sjp/Blockchain_Camera

      Abstract:

      
      Blockchain Camera provides an easy and safe way to capture and guarantee the existence of videos reducing the impact of modified videos as it can preserve the integrity and validity of videos using Blockchain Technology. Blockchain Camera sends to Ethereum Network the hash of each video and the time the video has been recorded in order to be able validate that a video is genuine and hasn't been modified using a Blockchain Camera Validation Tool.
      
        • sv1sjp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is to know the time that a video has been uploaded as well as the previous and next videos from it for uses as security cameras, accidents in cars etc to be able to trust a video. (More information can be found on paper).

          • taladar@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not even that. It only allows you to verify that the source is identical to (the potentially wrong information) that was claimed at the time of recording by the person adding that information to the block chain. Blockchain, as usual, adds nothing here.

            • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Blockchain, as usual, adds nothing here.

              it can add trust. If there’s a trusted central authority where these hashes can be stored then there’s no need for a blockchain. However, if there isn’t, then a blockchain could be used instead, as long as it’s big and established enough that everybody can agree that the data stored on it cannot be manipulated

              • nudny ekscentryk@szmer.info
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                but false, nonconsensual nudes are not collectible items that need to have their authenticity proven. they are there to destroy peoples’ lives. even if 99% of people seeing your nude believe you it’s not authnetic, it still affects you heavily

                • fiah@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  nonconsensual nudes are not collectible items that need to have their authenticity proven

                  of course not, but that’s not what this comment thread is about. It’s about this:

                  Ironically, in a sense we will revert back to the era before photography existed. To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on witness testimony.

                  that’s where it can be very useful to store a fingerprint of a file in a trusted database, regardless of where that database gets its trust from

          • nudny ekscentryk@szmer.info
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            yeah but the problem is mere existance of tools allowing pornographic forgery, not verifying whether the material is real or not

      • Gsus4@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How is that better than an immutable database where you guarantee trust simply by gettin your own public hash receipt for the database every time you introduce a new item? Why obfuscate things by riding the “Blockchain” hype bandwagon?

          • Gsus4@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A nonprofit with multiple synchronized copies of the database and you can get your own copy, synchronize, fork it if you have the space, like a GitLab repository. Remember this is not for secure transactions and to prevent double-spending like a currency. It’s just an additive database. You don’t need to overkill with a blockchain.

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Can you name a nonprofit you’d trust to manage court admissable evidence? How do you resolve differences that can pop up when forks don’t agree?

              • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Look, Git exists and image or document registration in an official onine database is Git diffs with less functionality because you can’t remove previous commits: you just append new lines. This is a solved problem. If you’re trying to solve a double-spend problem, then you need more than that, but it’s overkill for your problem.

                PS: maybe I’m oversimplifying it, but here’s more discussion on this:

                https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46192377/why-is-git-not-considered-a-block-chain

                https://stackoverflow.com/questions/59509764/is-git-distributed-or-decentralized

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  because you can’t remove previous commits: you just append new lines

                  I know it’s frowned on to modify the history of a remote branch, and I haven’t done much research on it because of that, however I’m fairly certain you can modify the history.

                  So…who hosts the gitlab/GitHub server that you’d trust to never manipulate the git history?

                  You still haven’t answered my question of which nonprofit you’d think everyone would agree with should host such a service.

                  • Gsus4@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    There are examples like DNS or the Mozilla foundation or all sorts of repos. Due to the receipt system you can verify if the commit history has been tampered with (your image has been removed from the database or edited). For court documents each court could host its own database where checksums are verified periodically, by “oracles”.

    • hardware26@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not necessarily, solutions can implemented. For example, footage from private security cameras can be sent to trusted establishment (trusted by the court at least) in real time which can be timestamped and stored (maybe not necessarily even stored there, encryption with timestamp may be enough). If source private camera and the network is secure, footage is also secure.

        • taladar@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think that will matter very much considering how many real time video modifications we can do already today. Not to mention synthesizing video before the time it is supposed to take place.

      • Benj1B@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Network security is a pretty big ask though - just look at how many unsecured cameras are around now. And once an attacker is in anything generated on that network becomes suspect - how do you know the security camera feed wasn’t intercepted, manipulated, or replaced altogether?

    • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on witness testimony flagrancy.

      FTFY. Witness has never been that good a means to verify something is real.