Skip to content

Kids are making deepfakes of each other, and laws aren’t keeping up

Technology
156 75 0
  • It's sexually objectifying the bodies of girls and turning them into shared sexual fantasies their male peers are engaging in. It is ABSOLUTELY different because it is more realistic. We are talking about entire deep fake porngraphy production and distribution groups IN THEIR OWN SCHOOLS. The amount of teenage boys cutting pictures out and photoshopping them was nowhere near as common as this is fast becoming and it was NOT the same as seeing a naked body algorithmically derived to appear as realistic as possible.

    Can you stop trying to find a silver lining in the sexual exploitation of teenage girls? You clearly don't understand the kinds of long term psychological harm that is caused by being exploited in this way. It was also exploitative and also fucked up when it was in photoshop, this many orders of magnitude more sophisticated and accessible.

    Youre also wrong that this is about bullying. Its an introduction to girls being tools for male sexual gratification. It's LITERALLY commodifiying teenage girls as sexual experiences and then sharing them in groups together. It's criminal. The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form. It should be against the law and it should be prosecuted very seriously wherever it is found to occur.

    If a boy fantasises sexually about a girl, is that harmful to her? If he tells his friends about it? No, this is not harmful - these actions do not affect her in any way. What affects the girl is how the boys might then treat her differently than they would do someone they don't find sexually attractive.

    The solution, in both cases, has to be to address the harmful behaviour. The only arguments for criminalising deepfakes themselves are also arguments for criminalising sexual fantasies. that is why people are talking about thought crime, because once you criminalise things that are harmless on their own, but which might down the line lead to directly harmful behaviour, there is no other distinction.

    The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form.

    Both of these, for example, apply just as readily to discussing a shared sexual fantasy about someone who didn't agree to it.

    No distinction, that is, other than this is new and icky. I don't want government policy to be dictated by fear of the new and by what people find icky, though. I do lots of stuff people find icky.

  • How is a school going to regulate what kids do outside of school property? They could ban cell phones on campus but that's not going to change what happens after hours.

    Schools can already do that though. You can get in trouble for bullying outside of school, and when i was a student athletes i had pretty strict restrictions on what i was allowed to do because i was an "ambassador" for the school.

  • This definitely will not add in any way to the way women and girls are made to feel entirely disgustingly dehumanized by every man or boy in their lives. Groups of men and boys reducing them and their bodies down to vivid sexual fantasies that they can quickly generate photo realistic images of.

    Sexual attraction doesn't necessarily involve dehumanization. Unlike most other kinds of interest in a human being, it doesn't require interest in their personality, but these are logically not the same.

    In general you are using emotional arguments for things that work not through emotion, but through literal interpretation. That's like using metric calculations for a system that expects imperial. Utterly useless.

    If the person in the image is underaged then it should be classified as child pornography.

    No, it's not. It's literally a photorealistic drawing based on a photo (and a dataset to make the generative model). No children have been abused to produce it. Laws work literally.

    If the woman who’s photo is being used hasnt consented to this then it should be classified as sexual exploitation.

    No, because the woman is not being literally sexually exploited. Her photo being used without consent is, I think, subject of some laws. There are no new fundamental legal entities involved.

    Women and girls have faced degrees of this kind of sexual exploitation by men and boys since the latter half of the 20th century. But this is a severe escalation in that behavior. It should be illegal to do this and it should be prosecuted when and where it is found to occur.

    I think I agree. But it's neither child pornography nor sexual exploitation and can't be equated to them.

    There are already existing laws for such actions, similar to using a photo of the victim and a pornographic photo, paper, scissors, pencils and glue. Or, if you think the situation is radically different, there should be new punishable crimes introduced.

    Otherwise it's like punishing everyone caught driving while drunk for non-premeditated murder. One is not the other.

    Hey so, at least in the US, drawings can absolutely be considered CSAM

  • If a boy fantasises sexually about a girl, is that harmful to her? If he tells his friends about it? No, this is not harmful - these actions do not affect her in any way. What affects the girl is how the boys might then treat her differently than they would do someone they don't find sexually attractive.

    The solution, in both cases, has to be to address the harmful behaviour. The only arguments for criminalising deepfakes themselves are also arguments for criminalising sexual fantasies. that is why people are talking about thought crime, because once you criminalise things that are harmless on their own, but which might down the line lead to directly harmful behaviour, there is no other distinction.

    The consent of the individual has been entirely erased. Dehumanization in its most direct form.

    Both of these, for example, apply just as readily to discussing a shared sexual fantasy about someone who didn't agree to it.

    No distinction, that is, other than this is new and icky. I don't want government policy to be dictated by fear of the new and by what people find icky, though. I do lots of stuff people find icky.

    No an image that is shared and distributed is not the same as a fantasy in someone's head. That is deranged. Should CSAM also be legal because making it illegal is like criminalizing the fantasies of pedophiles? Absolutely insane logical framework you have there.

    This isnt fantasy. It is content. It is media. It is material. It is produced without the consent of the girls and women being sexualized and it commodifies their existence, literally transforming the idea of them into sexual media consumed for the gratification of boys and men.

    It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic, so impassive, so detached from the real world and the consequences of this, that you could even make this comparison. You have seemingly no idea what youre talking about if you believe that pornography is the same thing as mental fantasies.

    And even in the case of mental fantasies, are those all good? Is it really a good thing that boys see the mere existence of the girls around them as inherently some kind of sexual availability?

  • No an image that is shared and distributed is not the same as a fantasy in someone's head. That is deranged. Should CSAM also be legal because making it illegal is like criminalizing the fantasies of pedophiles? Absolutely insane logical framework you have there.

    This isnt fantasy. It is content. It is media. It is material. It is produced without the consent of the girls and women being sexualized and it commodifies their existence, literally transforming the idea of them into sexual media consumed for the gratification of boys and men.

    It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic, so impassive, so detached from the real world and the consequences of this, that you could even make this comparison. You have seemingly no idea what youre talking about if you believe that pornography is the same thing as mental fantasies.

    And even in the case of mental fantasies, are those all good? Is it really a good thing that boys see the mere existence of the girls around them as inherently some kind of sexual availability?

    When someone makes child porn they put a child in a sexual situation - which is something that we have amassed a pile of evidence is extremely harmful to the child.

    For all you have said - "without the consent" - "being sexualised" - "commodifies their existence" - you haven't told us what the harm is. If you think those things are in and of themselves harmful then I need to know more about what you mean because:

    1. if someone thinks of me sexually without my consent I am not harmed
    2. if someone sexualises me in their mind I am not harmed
    3. I don't know what the "commodification of one's existence" can actually mean - I can't buy or sell "the existence of women" (does buying something's existence mean the same as buying the thing, or something else?) the same I can aluminium, and I don't see how being able to (easily) make (realistic) nude images of someone changes this in any way

    It is genuinely incredible to me that you could be so unempathetic,

    I am not unempathetic, but I attribute the blame for what makes me feel bad about the situation is that girls are being made to feel bad and ashamed not that a particular technology is now being used in one step of that.

  • So is this a way to take away rights by making it about kids?

    I mean what the fuck. We did much less and got punished right? It didn't matter if we were on the property. Schools can hold students accountable for conduct with other students.

    The leaded-gas adults of the time had no problem dealing with the emergence of cell phones. It was a distraction. They didn't need lawmakers to call it something specific. My Pokemon cards caused fights and were banned. No lawmakers needed.

    The problem is surely with the interaction between parents and schools. Or maybe it's just the old way of thinking. Maybe it's better to have police and courts start taking over discipline in schools.

    All your examples are of things that were stopped while at school, so your argument doesn't really carry over. You still had your pokemon cards everywhere else.

  • Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

    Instead of laws keeping up It also might turn out to be a case where culture keeps up.

  • My mama always told me, that if someone makes a deepfake of you, then you make a deepfake of them right back!

    Thanks, cap'n.

  • A 99-1 vote to drop the anti AI regulation is hardly the government voting against. The Senate smashed that shit hard and fast.

    Expecting people to know about that 99-1 vote might be misplaced optimism, since it hasn't been made into a meme yet.

  • My mama always told me, that if someone makes a deepfake of you, then you make a deepfake of them right back!

    this advice might get you locked up

  • My mama always told me, that if someone makes a deepfake of you, then you make a deepfake of them right back!

    In the bible, it says, and I quote: "If a deepkfake of you is made, you shall give the creator more material to create deepfakes"

  • Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

    Aren't there already laws against making child porn?

  • Aren't there already laws against making child porn?

    I'd rather these laws be against abusing and exploiting child, as well as against ruining their lives. Not only that would be more helpful, it would also work in this case, since actual likeness are involved.

    Alas, whether there's a law against that specific use case or not, it is somewhat difficult to police what people do in their home, without a third party whistleblower. Making more, impossible to apply laws for this specific case does not seem that useful.

  • this advice might get you locked up

    My mama also told me that if someone locks you up, then you just lock them up right back.

  • Schools and lawmakers are grappling with how to address a new form of peer-on-peer image-based sexual abuse that disproportionately targets girls.

    I don't understand fully how this technology works, but, if people are using it to create sexual content of underage individuals, doesn't that mean the LLM would need to have been trained on sexual content of underage individuals? Seems like going after the company and whatever it's source material is would be the obvious choice here

  • In the bible, it says, and I quote: "If a deepkfake of you is made, you shall give the creator more material to create deepfakes"

    An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a deepfake for a deepfake.

  • Expecting people to know about that 99-1 vote might be misplaced optimism, since it hasn't been made into a meme yet.

    especially that Abbot Ted Cruz, who brought this one up, voted against it in the end, which is pretty confusing for an european tbh

    e: i mean that it's memeworthy lol

  • especially that Abbot Ted Cruz, who brought this one up, voted against it in the end, which is pretty confusing for an european tbh

    e: i mean that it's memeworthy lol

    I'm confused - by Abbot do you mean Gov. Abbott of Texas, and are we talking about the same issue? Cuz the 99-1 vote was about a senate bill regarding AI. Greg Abbott can't vote on senate bills, and there's no senator named Abbot.

  • I'm confused - by Abbot do you mean Gov. Abbott of Texas, and are we talking about the same issue? Cuz the 99-1 vote was about a senate bill regarding AI. Greg Abbott can't vote on senate bills, and there's no senator named Abbot.

    aaah i misremembered, it was Ted Cruz, oops 😄

  • I think generating and sharing sexually explicit images of a person without their consent is abuse.

    That's distinct from generating an image that looks like CSAM without the involvement of any real child. While I find that disturbing, I'm morally uncomfortable criminalizing an act that has no victim.

    Harassment sure, but not abuse.

  • 224 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    A
    they may have bunkers as a contingency but i doubt they think that existence is inevitable.
  • 40 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    N
    That they didn't have enough technicians trained in this to be able to ensure that one was always available during working hours, or at least when it was glaringly obvious that one was going to be needed that day, is . . . both extremely and obviously stupid, and par for the course for a corp whose sole purpose is maximizing profit for the next quarter.
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 195 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    isveryloud@lemmy.caI
    It's a loaded term that should be replaced with a more nimble definition. A dog whistle is the name for a loaded term that is used to tag a specific target with a large baggage of information, but in a way where only people who are part of the "in group" can understand the baggage of the word, hence "dog whistle", only heard by dogs. In the case of the word "degeneracy", it's a vague word that has been often used to attack, among other things, LGBTQ and their allies as well as non-religious people. The term is vague enough that the user can easily weasel their way out of criticism for its usage, but the target audience gets the message loud and clear: "[target] should be attacked for being [thing]." Another example of such a word would be "woke".
  • Dyson Has Killed Its Bizarre Zone Air-Purifying Headphones

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    227 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    rob_t_firefly@lemmy.worldR
    I have been chuckling like a dork at this particular patent since such things first became searchable online, and have never found any evidence of it being manufactured and marketed at all. The "non-adhesive adherence" is illustrated in the diagrams on the patent which you can see at the link. The inventor proposes "a facing of fluffy fibrous material" to provide the filtration and the adherence; basically this thing is the softer side of a velcro strip, bent in half with the fluff facing outward so it sticks to the inside of your buttcrack to hold itself in place in front of your anus and filter your farts through it.
  • The largest cryptocurrency money-laundering ring

    Technology technology
    26
    326 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    ulrich@feddit.orgU
    It has their name and where it came from so. Yes? That's not what I asked. Are you expecting people to direct link everything even when it is already atributed? I mean is that really too much to expect of people? To simply copy the link where they found the information and post it along with where they shared it?
  • 104 Stimmen
    168 Beiträge
    63 Aufrufe
    smartmanapps@programming.devS
    At least that’s not how I’ve been taught in school If you had a bad teacher that doesn't mean everyone else had a bad teacher. You’re not teaching kids how to prove the quadratic formula, do you? We teach them how to do proofs, including several specific ones. No, you teach them how to use it instead. We teach them how to use everything, and how to do proofs as well. Your whole argument is just one big strawman. Again, with the order of operations Happens to be the topic of the post. It’s not a thing Yes it is! I’ve given you two examples that don’t follow any So you could not do the brackets first and still get the right answer? Nope! 2×2×(2-2)/2=0 2×2×2-2/2=7 That’s kinda random, but sure? Not random at all, given you were talking about students understanding how Maths works. 2+3×4 then it’s not an order of operation that plays the role here Yes it is! If I have 1 2-litre bottle of milk, and 4 3-litre bottles of milk, there's only 1 correct answer for how many litres of milk of have, and it ain't 20! Even elementary school kids know how to work it out just by counting up. They all derive from each other No they don't. The proof of order of operations has got nothing to do with any of the properties you mentioned. For example, commutation is used to prove identity And neither is used to prove the order of operations. 2 operators, no order followed Again with a cherry-picked example that only includes operators of the same precedence. You have no property that would allow for (2+3)×4 to be equal 2+3×4 And yet we have a proof of why 14 is the only correct answer to 2+3x4, why you have to do the multiplication first. Is that not correct? Of course it is. So what? It literally has subtraction and distribution No it didn't. It had Brackets (with subtraction inside) and Multiplication and Division. I thought you taught math, no? Yep, and I just pointed out that what you just said is wrong. 2-2(1+2) has Subtraction and Distribution. 2-2 is 2 being, hear me out, subtracted from 2 Which was done first because you had it inside Brackets, therefore not done in the Subtraction step in order of operations, but the Brackets step. Also, can you explain how is that cherry-picking? You already know - you know which operations to pick to make it look like there's no such thing as order of operations. If I tell you to look up at the sky at midnight and say "look - there's no such thing as the sun", that doesn't mean there's no such thing as the sun.
  • The Enshitification of Youtube’s Full Album Playlists

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    108 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    dual_sport_dork@lemmy.worldD
    Especially when the poster does not disclose that it's AI. The perpetual Youtube rabbit hole occasionally lands on one of these for me when I leave it unsupervised, and usually you can tell from the "cover" art. But only if you're looking at it. Because if you just leave it going in the background eventually you start to realize, "Wow, this guy really tripped over the fine line between a groove and rut." Then you click on it and look: Curses! Foiled again. And golly gee, I'm sure glad Youtube took away the option to oughtright block channels. I'm sure that's a total coincidence. W/e. I'm a have-it-on-my-hard-drive kind of bird. Yt-dlp is your friend. Just use it to nab whatever it is you actually want and let your own media player decide how to shuffle and present it. This works great for big name commercial music as well, whereupon the record labels are inevitably dumb enough to post songs and albums in their entirety right there you Youtube. Who even needs piracy sites at that rate? Yoink!