Thanks, cap'n.

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

this advice might get you locked up

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"

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.

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

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

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

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.

aaah i misremembered, it was Ted Cruz, oops

Ted Cruz plan to punish states that regulate AI shot down in 99-1 vote

The one vote backing moratorium on state AI laws came from Thom Tillis, not Cruz.

Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)

Harassment sure, but not abuse.

not necessarily. image generation models work on a more fine-grained scale than that. they can seamlessly combine related concepts, like "photograph"+"person"+"small"+"pose" and generate plausible material due to the fact that all of those concepts have features in common.

you can also use small add-on models trained on very little data (tens to hundreds of images, as compared to millions to billions for a full model) to "steer" the output of a model towards a particular style.

you can make even a fully legal model output illegal data.

all that being said, the base dataset that most of the stable diffusion family of models started out with in 2021 is medical in nature so there could very well be bad shit in there. it's like 12 billion images so it's hard to check, and even back with stable diffusion 1.0 there was less than a single bit of data in the final model per image in the data.

For example, Louisiana mandates a minimum five-year jail sentence no matter the age of the perpetrator.

That's just on it's face stupid. A thirteen year old boy is absolutely gonna wanna see girls in his age group naked. That's not pedophilia. It's wanting to see the girls he fantasizes about at school every day. Source: I was a thirteen year old boy.

It shouldn't be treated the same as when an adult man generates it; there should be nuance. I'm not saying it's ok for a thirteen year old to generate said content: I'm saying tailor the punishment to fit the reality of the differences in motivations. Leave it to Louisiana to once again use a cudgel rather than sense.

I'm so glad I went through puberty at a time when this kind of shit wasn't available. The thirteen year old version of me would absolutely have got myself in a lot of trouble. And depending on what state I was in, seventeen year old me could have ended listed as a sex predetor for sending dick pics to my gf cause I produced child pornography. God, some states have stupid laws.

This is mostly about swapping faces. You take a video and a photo of someone's face. Software can replace the face of someone in the video with that face. That's been around for a decade or so. There are other ways of doing it.

When the face belongs to an underage individual, and the video is pornographic...

LLMs only do text.

Jfc the replies here are fucking rancid. Lemmy is full of sweaty middle aged blokes in tech who hate it when anyone tells them that grown men who pursue teenage girls who have just reached an arbitrary age are fucking creeps, so of course they're here encouraging the next generation of misogynist scum by defending this shit, too.
And men (pretend to) wonder why we distrust them.

Ngl, I'm only leaving reply notifs on for this one to work on my blocklist.

Are you OK with sexually explicit photos of children taken without their knowledge? They’re not being actively put in a sexual situation if you’re snapping photos with a hidden camera in a locker room, for example. You ok with that?

The harm is:

• Those photos now exist in the world and can lead to direct harm to the victim by their exposure
• it normalizes pedophilia and creates a culture of trading images, leading to more abuse to meet demand for more images
• The people sharing those photos learn to treat people like objects for their sexual gratification, ignoring their consent and agency. They are more likely to mistreat people they have learned to objectify.
• your body should not be used for the profit or gratification of others without your consent. In my mind this includes taking or using your picture without your consent.

Yeah there’s some nasty shit here. Big yikes, Lemmy.

If someone puts a camera in a locker room, that means that someone entered a space where you would usually feel safe. It implies the potential of a physical threat.

It also means that someone observed you when you were doing "secret" things. One may feel vulnerable in such situations. Even a seasoned nude model might be embarrassed to be seen while changing, maybe in a dishevelled state.

I would think it is very different. Unless you're only thinking about the psychological effect on the viewer.