• Bonesy91@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is what the white house is concerned about… Fuck them. Like there is so much worse going on in America but oh no one person has ai fake porn images heaven forbid!

    • MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      The White House is capable of having a position on more than one issue at a time. There also doesn’t seem to be a particular bill they are touting, so this seems to be more of a “This is messed up. Congress should do something about it” situation than “We’re dropping everything to deal with this” one.

    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nice job reading the article, any one of these articles, to actually get context and not just react to headlines.

      People are asking about Swift. The government isn’t buddying up to her specifically. Swift is only the most famous face of this issue with very focused growth on this.

  • iheartneopets@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Taylor is just trying to distract us from her jet emissions again, just like her new PR relationship with that Kelce guy was almost certainly to distract us from her dating that Matty Healy dude that openly said he enjoys porn that brutalizes black women (and also from her jet emissions).

    She’s not stupid. She’s a billionaire very aware of how news cycles work.

  • Zozano@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Do you want more AI gens of nude Taylor Swift? Because that’s how you get more AI gens of nude Taylor Swift.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Only AI fakes of billionaires. They’re just admitting that there’s a two tiered legal system, and if you’re below a certain “value,” you will not be protected.

      I fat fingered and replied to the wrong comment.

  • BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Nobody cares until someone rich is impacted. Revenge porn has been circulating on platforms uninhibited for many years, but the second it happens to a major celebrity suddenly there’s a rush to do something about it.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      What?

      This isn’t revenge porn, it’s fakes of celebrities.

      Something that was done for decades, and one of the biggest parts of early reddit. So it’s not “the second” either.

      The only thing that’s changed is people are generating it with AI.

      The ones made without AI (that have been made for decades) are a lot more realistic and a lot more explicit. It just takes skill and time, which is why people were only doing it for celebrities.

      The danger of AI is any random person could take some pictures off social media and make explicit images. The technology isn’t there yet, but it won’t take much longer

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      the second it happens to a major celebrity suddenly there’s a rush to do something about it.

      Bruh this been happening to celebrities for decades.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think it’s more about the abject danger that unregulated AI replication of noteworthy figures represents to basically everything

      Also, revenge porn is illegal in I think every state but South Carolina and even then it might have been banned since I saw that stat

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      What a braindead take. Both the US and many other intl countries have enacted AI safety and regulation rules, this is an extension of that effort. The idea is to set a precedent for this kind of behavior. They are also looking into how AI is being used for election interference like having AI Biden tell people not to vote.

      Everybody cares, just because it’s not all in place day 0 doesn’t mean nobody does

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      While I agree with the sentiment that rich people’s issues have more influence.

      How Many States Have Revenge Porn Laws?

      All states, excluding Massachusetts and South Carolina, have separate statutes specifically related to revenge porn. It’s important to note, however, that a person may still be prosecuted for revenge porn under other statutes in those two states.

      https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/revenge-porn-laws-by-state.html

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      You think it wasn’t celebrities first? The issue here is specifically Taylor Swift.

  • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This wasn’t a problem until the rich white girl got it. Now we must do… something. Let’s try panic!

    -The Whitehouse, probably.

    • frickineh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Honestly, I kind of don’t even care. If that’s what it takes to get people to realize that it’s a serious problem, cool. I mean, it’s aggravating, but at least now something might actually happen that helps protect people who aren’t megastars.

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Blah blah blah so tiring to hear this thoughtless perspective constantly pushed in the fediverse.

          • PapaStevesy@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I’m just saying, nothing about this should lead anyone to the conclusion that anyone in power is suddenly going to start caring about poor people. They’re literally only talking about this because a billionaire got its feelings hurt.

          • eskimofry@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            If you don’t like discourse that is different from your beliefs then plug your ears and shout lalala as you have been doing so for decades.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Someone complaining about the same thoughtless perspective is not complaining about discourse.

              Just once I’d love to have actual discourse about capitalism. I’ve never met a person who expressed hatred of capitalism who seemed capable of of discourse unfortunately.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        The only thing that could possibly happen to protect people from this is to make AI illegal. That would be (a) impossible to enforce without draconian decrease in individual freedom, like keeping people stuffed in crates of packing foam instead of free to move around, and (b) absolutely horrible if it were successfully enforced.

        AI is cheaper and easier to proliferate than any drug. We have not succeeded in controlling drugs, despite their physical requirements of mass and volume making them visible in reality, a feature AI does not share.

        The attempt to control AI can and will destroy all our freedoms if we let it. Again, the only way to control something so ephemeral as computation is to massively restrict all freedom.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It absolutely was a problem before and it’s not because Taylor is white. Revenge porn laws aren’t new and AI legislation has been in the works before this popped off.

      You also gonna say nobody cared about election interference until an AI recording of Biden told people not to vote?

      Just because you weren’t aware doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening

  • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Notice how there wasn’t any of this kind of effort to stop AI when pedos were making CP with it? Or when indie artists were being plagiarized by it?

  • guyrocket@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    This will be interesting.

    How to write legislation to stop AI nudes but not photo shopping or art? I am not at all sure it can be done. And even if it can, will it withstand a courtroom free speech test?

    • macrocarpa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think it’s not feasible to stop or control it, for several reasons -

      1. People are motivated to consume ai porn
      2. There is no barrier to creating it
      3. There is no cost to create it
      4. There are multiple generations of people who have shared the source material needed to create it.

      We joke about rule 34 right, if you can think of it there is porn of it. It’s now pretty straightforward to fulfil the second part of that, irrespective as to the thing you thought of. Those pics of your granddsd in his 20s in a navy uniform? Your high school yearbook picture? Six shots of your younger sister shared by an aunt on Facebook? Those are just as consumable by ai as tay tay is.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      You write legislation that bans all three because there is no difference between generating, photoshopping or drawing lewds of someone without their consent.

      Banning this on an individual level would be impossible, so you let the platforms that host it get sued.

      We have the technology to detect if an image is NSFW and if it includes a celebrity. Twitter is letting this happen on purpose.

      The images spread across X in particular on Wednesday night, with one hitting 45 million views before being taken down. The platform was slow to respond, with the post staying up for around 17 hours.

      It’s hard to pretend it wasn’t reported by Taylors fans many time during this time and the moderators didn’t know about this image half an hour after it was posted.

    • Susaga@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      If the image is even slightly convincing, it’s essentially just defamation with digital impersonation thrown in. Yeah, that might catch photoshop in its net, but you’d need to be a DAMN good artist to get caught in it as well.

      • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        So what level is slightly convincing?

        What about people that happen to look like someone famous?

        What level of accuracy is necessary?

        If I label some random blonde ai generated porn “Taylor Slow”, does that count?

        They are both blonde after all.

    • remotelove@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Well, it’s not really just about Swift. There are probably many other people that are going through this. Not every person who generates nudes of someone else is going to make it to the news, after all.

      I could see this being a problem in highschools as really mean pranks. That is not good. There are a million other ways I could see fake nudes being used against someone.

      If someone spread pictures of me naked: 1. I would be flattered and 2. Really ask why someone wants to see me naked in the first place.

      If anything, just an extension of any slander(?) laws would work. It’s going to be extremely hard to enforce any law though, so there is that.

      However, how long have revenge porn laws been a thing? Were they ever really a thing?

  • moitoi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    People need to understand that AI have to be strongly regulated. Every new piece of tech need a regulation or fit in a existing regulation.

    What we see for decades in form of reacting afterwards isn’t working at all. It’s medication which doesn’t really work. We should prevent these.

  • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Wait… They want to stop only Taylor Swift AI fakes? Not every AI fake representing a real person???

    • ehrik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Y’all need to read the article and stop rage baiting. It’s literally a click away.

      “Legislation needs to be passed to protect people from fake sexual images generated by AI, the White House said this afternoon.”

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Only AI fakes of billionaires. They’re just admitting that there’s a two tiered legal system, and if you’re below a certain “value,” you will not be protected.