Actually, a good 99% of my reports end up in the video being taken down. Whether it’s because of mass reports or whether they actually review it is unclear.

What’s weird is the algorithm still seems to register that as engagement, so lately I’ve been reporting 20+ videos a day because it keeps showing them to me on my FYP. It’s wild.

Nice pipe dream, but the current fundamental model of AI is not and cannot be made deterministic. Until that fundamental chamge is developed, it isnt possible.

Behold my meaty, majestic tentacles. This better not awaken anything in me…

Exactly. I’m not even shy, my boobs have been out plenty and I’ve sent nudes all that. Hell I met my wife with my tits out. But there’s a wild difference between pictures I made and released of my own will in certain contexts and situations vs pictures attempting to approximate my naked body generated without my knowledge or permission because someone had a whim.

I think you might be overreacting, and if you’re not, then it says much more about the society we are currently living in than this particular problem.

I’m not promoting AI fakes, just to be clear. That said, AI is just making fakes easier. If you were a teacher (for example) and you’re so concerned that a student of yours could create this image that would cause you to pick up and move your life, I’m sad to say they can already do this and they’ve been able to for the last 10 years.

I’m not saying it’s good that a fake, or an unsubstantiated rumor of an affair, etc can have such big impacts on our life, but it is troubling that someone like yourself can fear for their livelihood over something so easy for anyone to produce. Are we so fragile? Should we not worry more about why our society is so prudish and ostracizing to basic human sexuality?

I think this is why it’s going to be interesting to see how we navigate this as a society. So far, we’ve done horribly. It’s been over a century now that we’ve acknowledged sexual harassment in the workplace is a problem that harms workers (and reduces productivity) and yet it remains an issue today (only now we know the human resources department will protect the corporate image and upper management by trying to silence the victims).

What deepfakes and generative AI does is make it easy for a campaign staffer, or an ambitious corporate later climber with a buddy with knowhow, or even a determined grade-school student to create convincing media and publish it on the internet. As I note in the other response, if a teen’s sexts get reported to law enforcement, they’ll gladly turn it into a CSA production and distribution issue and charge the teens themselves with serious felonies with long prison sentences. Now imagine if some kid wanted to make a rival disappear. Heck, imagine the smart kid wanting to exact revenge on a social media bully, now equipped with the power of generative AI.

The thing is, the tech is out of the bag, and as with princes in the mid-east looking at cloned sheep (with deteriorating genetic defects) looking to create a clone of himself as an heir, humankind will use tech in the worst, most heinous possible ways until we find cause to cease doing so. (And no, judicial punishment doesn’t stop anyone). So this is going to change society, whether we decide collectively that sexuality (even kinky sexuality) is not grounds to shame and scorn someone, or that we use media scandals the way Italian monastics and Russian oligarchs use poisons, and scandalize each other like it’s the shootout at O.K. Corral.

I’m not arguing whether people should or should not have control over whether others can produce a nude (or lewd) likeness or perpetuate false scandal, only that this technology doesn’t change the equation. People have been accused of debauchery and scorned long before the invention of the camera, let alone digital editing.

Julia the Elder was portrayed (poorly, mind you) in sexual congress on Roman graffiti. Marie Antoinette was accused of a number of debauched sexual acts she didn’t fully comprehend. Marie Antoinette actually had an uninteresting sex life. It was accusations of The German Vice (id est lesbianism) that were the most believable and quickened her path to the guillotine.

The movie, The Contender (2000) addresses the issue with happenstance evidence. A woman politician was caught on video inflagrante delicto at a frat party in her college years just as she was about to be appointed as a replacement Vice President.

Law enforcement still regards sexts between underage teens as child porn, and our legal system will gladly incarcerate those teens for the crime of expressing their intimacy to their lovers. (Maine, I believe, is the sole exception, having finally passed laws to let teens use picture messaging to court each other.) So when it comes to the intersection of human sexuality and technology, so far we suck at navigating it.

To be fair, when it comes to human sexuality at all, US society sucks at navigating it. We still don’t discuss consent in grade school. I can’t speak for anywhere else in the world, though I’ve not heard much good news.

The conversation about revenge porn (which has been made illegal without the consent of all participants in the US) appears to inform how society regards explicit content of private citizens. I can’t speak to paparazzi content. Law hasn’t quite caught up with Photoshop, let alone deepfakes and content made with generative AI systems.

But my point was, public life, whether in media, political, athletic or otherwise, is competitive and involves rivalries that get dirty. Again, if we, as a species actually had the capacity for reason, we would be able to choose our cause célèbre with rationality, and not judge someone because some teenager prompted a genAI platform to create a convincing scandalous video.

I think we should be above that, as a society, but we aren’t. My point was that I don’t fully understand the mechanism by which our society holds contempt for others due to circumstances outside their control, a social behavior I find more abhorrent than using tech to create a fictional image of someone in the buff for private use.

Sadly, fictitious explicit media can be as effective as a character assassination tool as the real thing. I think it should be otherwise. I think we should be better than that, but we’re not. I am, consequently frustrated and disappointed with my society and my species. And while I think we’re going to need to be more mature about it, I’ve opined this since high school in the 1980s and things have only gotten worse.

At the same time, it’s like the FGC-9, the tech cannot be contained any than we can stop software piracy with DRM. Nor can we trust the community at large to use it responsibly. So yes, you can expect explicit media of colleagues to fly much the way accusations of child sexual assault flew in the 1990s (often without evidence in middle and upper management. It didn’t matter.) And we may navigate it pretty much the same way, with the same high rate of career casualties.

An artist doesn’t need your consent to paint/ draw you. A photographer doesn’t need your consent if your in public. You likely posted your original picture in public (yay facebook). Unfortunately consent was never a concern here… and you likely gave it anyway.

Human society is about power. It is because we can’t get past dominance hierarchy that our communities do nothing about schoolyard bullies, or workplace sexual harassment. It is why abstinence-only sex-ed has nothing positive to say to victims of sexual assault, once they make it clear that used goods are used goods.

Our culture agrees by consensus that seeing a woman naked, whether a candid shot, caught inflagrante delicto or rendered from whole cloth by a generative AI system, redefines her as a sexual object, reducing her qualifications as a worker, official or future partner. That’s a lot of power to give to some guy with X-ray Specs, and it speaks poorly of how society regards women, or human beings in general.

We disregard sex workers, too.

Violence sucks, but without the social consensus the propagates sexual victimhood, it would just be violence. Sexual violence is extra awful because the rest of society actively participates in making it extra awful.

Dude I can imagine people naked in my head.

Yes I think this ai trend is sad and people who use these service, it says a lot about what kind of person they are. And it also says a lot about what kind of company meta is.

Does it really matter though? “Well you see, they didn’t actually see you naked, it was just a photorealistic approximation of what you would look like naked”.

At that point I feel like the lines get very blurry, it’s still going to be embarrassing as hell, and them not being “real” nudes is not a big comfort when having to confront the fact that there are people masturbating to your “fake” nudes without your consent.

I think in a few years this won’t really be a problem because by then these things will be so widespread that no one will care, but right now the people being specifically targeted by this must not be feeling great.

My body is not inherently for your sexual simulation. Downloading my picture does not give you the right to turn it in to porn.

Not so much computers evil! as just acknowledging there will always be malicious actors who will find clever ways to use technology to cause harm. And yes, there’s a gathering of folk on 4Chan/b who nudify (denudify?) submitted pictures, usually of people they know, which, thanks to the process, puts them out on the internet. So this is already a problem.

Think of Murphy’s Law as it applies to product stress testing. Eventually, some customer is going to come in having broke the part you thought couldn’t be broken. Also, our vast capitalist society is fueled by people figuring out exploits in the system that haven’t been patched or criminalized (see the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008). So we have people actively looking to utilize technology in weird ways to monetize it. That folds neatly like paired gears into looking at how tech can cause harm.

As for people’s faces, one of the problems of facial recognition as a security tool (say when used by law enforcement to track perps) is the high number of false positives. It turns out we look a whole lot like each other. Though your doppleganger may be in another state and ten inches taller / shorter. In fact, an old (legal!) way of getting explicit shots of celebrities from the late 20th century was to find a look-alike and get them to pose for a song.

As for famous people, fake nudes have been a thing for a while, courtesy of Photoshop or some other digital photo-editing set combined with vast libraries of people. Deepfakes have been around since the late 2010s. So even if generative AI wasn’t there (which is still not great for video in motion) there are resources for fabricating content, either explicit or evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is why we are terrified of AI getting out of hand, not because our experts don’t know what they’re doing, but because the companies are very motivated to be the first to get it done, and that means making the kinds of mistakes that cause pipeline leakage on sacred Potawatomi tribal land.

This

I’m going to guess all the ones of women have bolt on tiddies and no pubic hair.

Gotta wonder where they get their horse dick training images from

Photoshop was not advertised for its ability to make fake nudes. The purpose of Photoshop is not to make fake nudes. It is a general purpose image editor. These two things are distinctly different.

Middle school boys could not create realistic depiction of their classmates engaged in sex with photoshop. At least not without significant time and effort. Now they can generate hundreds of photos in a matter of minutes.

You didn’t have to come out and tell everyone that you’re one of those guys who doesn’t understand the concept of sexual exploitation and consent.

It literally doesn’t matter what you call this. Colloquially the technology is known as “Generative AI”, and it is fully automating the task of making fake nudes to the point that shady websites only require a single input image, and with a few layers of machine learning, are able to spit out a convincing nude.

It was just as fucked up when perverts sexually exploited people with Photoshop, so I don’t understand what your point here is. “AI” has made sexual exploitation fully automated, and there’s absolutely no excuse for defending this.

Wrong. That took time and effort and some level of knowledge from the user, meaning the end product was still somewhat rare. We already know that a decent “AI” image generator can spit these out in seconds with zero skill or knowledge required from the user.

And yet that seems to be 60% of my wife’s facebook feed… I forbade her from posting our kids years ago.

I think old people are the ones less likely to understand this stuff.

How can anyone make money off porn if users simply create their own?

What, you mean like amateur porn or…?

Seems like professional porn still does great after over two decades of free internet porn so…

I guess they will solve this one the same way, by having better production quality. 🤷

I sat down with tacos as I opened up that reply.

Witch.

I guess that’s an OERGAsm

Section 230 is what allows for social media at all given the problem of content moderation at scale is still unsolved. Take away 230 and no company will accept the liability. But we will have underground forums teeming with white power terrorists signalling, CSAM and spam offering better penis pills and Nigerian princes.

The Google advertising system is also difficult to moderate at scale, but since Google makes money directly off ads, and loses money when YouTube content is not brand safe, Google tends to be harsh on content creators and lenient on advertisers.

It’s not a new problem, and nudification software is just the latest version of X-Ray Specs (which is to say weve been hungry to see teh nekkid for a very long time.) The worst problem is when adverts install spyware or malware onto your device without your consent, which is why you need to adblock Forbes Magazine…or really just everything.

However much of the world’s public discontent is fueled by information on the internet (Some false, some misleading, some true. A whole lot more that’s simultaneously true and heinous than we’d like in our society). So most of our officials would be glad to end Section 230 and shut down the flow of camera footage showing police brutality, or starving people in Gaza or fracking mishaps releasing gigatons of rogue methane into the atmosphere. Our officials would very much love if we’d go back to being uninformed with the news media telling us how it’s sure awful living in the Middle East.

Without 230, we could go back to George W. Bush era methods, and just get our news critical of the White House from foreign sources, and compare the facts to see that they match, signalling our friends when we detect false propaganda.

This was from a test I did with a throwaway account on IG where I followed a handful of weirdo parents who run “model” accounts for their kids to see if Instagram would start pushing problematic content as a result (spoiler: yes they will).

It took about 5 minutes from creating the account to end up with nothing but dressed down kids on my recommendations page paired with inappropriate ads. I guess the people who follow kids on IG also like these recommended photos, and the algorithm also figures they must be perverts, but doesn’t care about the sickening juxtaposition of children in swimsuits next to AI nudifying apps.

Don’t use Meta products. They don’t care about ethics, just profits.

My only hope is it also reduces CSAM of real people. Please at least do that much!

Send 'em to Zuck.

Nah it’s more like: If she didn’t want people to jerk off thinking about her, she shouldn’t have worn such provocative clothing.

I honestly don’t think we should encourage uploading this many photos as private people, but that’s something else.

You don’t need consent to jerk off to someone’s photos. You do need consent to tell them about it. Creating images is a bit riskier, but if you make sure no one ever sees them, there is no actual harm done.

If you have no problem with people jerking off to your pictures, fine, but others do

Of course, but people have been doing this since the dawn of time. So unless the plan is to incorporate the Thought Police, there’s no way to actually stop it from happening.

Interesting (wrong) assumption there buddy.

But why would I care how people think of me? If it influences their actions, we gonna start to have problems, tho.

Oh no, hanging the pictures on your wall is fucked.

The difference is if someone else can reasonably find out. If I tell someone that I think about them/someone else while masturbating, that is sexual harassment. If I have pictures on my wall and guests could see them, that’s sexual harassment.

If I just have an encrypted folder, not a problem.

It’s like the difference between thinking someone is ugly and saying it.