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!”
This all would not be a problem if people appreciated nudism more. Im not even talking about people being nudists, just people accepting nudists. Once you take away the nudism taboo, all these photos won’t matter at all
Banning diffusion models doesn’t work, the tech is already out there and you can’t put it back in the box. Fake nudes used to be done with PhotoShop, the current generative AI models only makes them faster to make.
This can only be stopped on the distribution side, and any new laws should focus on that.
But the silver lining of this whole thing is that nude scandals for celebs aren’t really possible any more if you can just say it’s probably a deepfake.
Other than banning those websites and apps that offer such services, I think we also need to seriously rethink our overall exposure to the internet, and especially rethink how and how much children access it.
Yea, with 15 good headshots from different angles I can build a LoRA for anybody, hell Civit is full of celebrity LoRA’s.
Mage.space already had to switch to SFW because people were generating CP. The past couple weeks I’ve been playing with stable diffusion and some of the checkpoints easily generate content that I had to delete because they looked REALLY young and it creeped me out.
I don’t even know whether to upvote or downvote your comment because I can’t figure out if you’re trying to say that only a man would do something like this, or that no woman is technically proficient enough to do this.
I don’t see how it won’t, people are always going to be sketched out by the notion that the guy across from you could be recording you or taking pictures without your knowledge
Yeah phones can kind of do the same, but it’s a lot harder to hide with a phone
Assuming Apple locks down their device enough, it should make it pretty clear when it’s recording. Whether this notion becomes generally known and accepted, though, is a question in itself.
People already don’t trust the webcams on their own machines to not record them, even when they have hardwired indicator lights, I really doubt that they’ll suddenly trust tech that most people have no experience with to be frank.
I don’t think it’ll be an issue with the Apple Vision Pro specifically though, it’s not like the Google Glass in that it’s super convenient to wear when you go out on a regular basis. No one but an absolute weirdo is going to sit down at the bar wearing his Apple Vision Pro, it’d be like bringing your Quest 2 lol
Yeah, but you can still regulate the content. Just because you can find CP on the web, doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t make it illegal. It deters people from it, and allows police to prosecute.
I don’t know about AI nudes. But with normal AI generated pics, they have a specific style and genericness to them. Don’t get me wrong, many AI generated pictures are hard to distinguish from real photographs. But on the other hand, many real photographs are easy to distinguish from AI generated pics. So you’d probably need to take the nudes in a specific way to have plausible deniability.
That hasn’t been the case for a while. With current models there is basically nothing that gives them instantly away as AI. You have to go anomaly hunting in the hopes to find an extra finger or a bit of text that looks twisted, but that assumes you already expect AI to begin with.
The best tell tale sign left for AI is really just the composition. It’s always very focused on the subject right in front of the camera, as if the person was posing for the photo, it’s never just random slice of life snapshot where you have multiple people in the image interacting in any kind of complex way. The crux of course is that your average Instagram image looks not much different, so it’s not exactly bullet proof either.
In the lab it’s still possible to tell the difference, if you run across an image in the wild you’ll just accept it as real without giving it a second though.
The crux of course is that your average Instagram image looks not much different
And I believe that is the reason why these AI images look like this: they’ve been trained with these Instagram and Instagram-like social media images, therefore that’s what they can do.
It’s part of the reason. Another big issue with current models is that their language understanding is very primitive. Something like “person standing” they can understand, but “one person with a red hat sitting and another standing behind them with a blue shirt” already fails. There will be red and blue things in the image, but they’ll be pretty arbitrarily spread across and not assigned to the person the prompt said.
That said, this won’t last for long. With Segment Anything we have AI that has a very good understanding of what is in an image, which should make training on arbitrary images much easier, as well as editing. We also have lots of research going into video and plenty of more powerful language models, that just haven’t yet integrated into image generation. Even just ControlNet and some inpainting can overcome most of those issues, it just takes a bit more manual work than a text prompt. There is also DraGan, which is an incredible powerful drag&drop approach to AI image editing, but due to using a completely different approach from StableDiffusion it is not yet properly integrated into other tools.
It's impossible to ban AI once it's allowed for public use because technology spreads rapidly, and enforcing a ban becomes impractical due to its widespread adoption and the difficulty of regulating it effectively. But hey, if you want to make an ineffective ban that will only affect one small part of the world, irrelevant to the masses, be my guest.
No it isn’t. We can and have banned awful, terrible shit that became widespread before, and we’ll do it again. To your precious AI you’re dumb enough to allow to do your thinking for you. We’ll even jail you for using the things.
That’s what laws are for and if we believe what you’re saying, then no law can exist.
And I do think the EU is more likely even than us to ban you, or at least heavily regulate you.
You’re living in a dream world if you think you can steal everyone else’s artwork en masse, use it to generate art for you and think you can get away with it. It’s going to happen. You’re going to get banned.
Interesting. Replika AI, ChatGPT etc crack down on me for doing erotic stories and roleplay text dialogues. And this Clothoff App happily draws child pornography of 14 year olds? Shaking my head…
I wonder why they have no address etc on their website and the app isn’t available in any of the proper app-stores.
Obviously police should ask Instagram who blackmails all these girls… Teach them a proper lesson. And then stop this company. Have them fined a few millions for generating and spreading synthetic CP. At least write a letter to their hosting or payment providers.
I just hope they even try to catch these people. I’ve tried to look up who’s behind that and it’s a domain that’s with name.com and the server is behind Cloudflare. I’m not Anonymous, so that’s the point at which I’m at my wits’ end. Someone enraged could file a few reports at their abuse contacts… Just sayin…
There’s always the possibility they just catch the boy and just punish him. Letting the even more disgusting people in the background keep doing what they want. Because it would be difficult to get a hold of them. This would be the easiest route for the prosecuters and the least efficient way to deal with this issue as a whole.
The shock value of a nude picture will become increasingly humdrum as they become more widespread. Nudes will become so common that no one will batt an eye. In fact, some less endowed, less perfect ladies will no doubt do AI generated pictures or movies of themselves to sell on the internet. Think of it as photoshop X 10.
The lack of empathy in your response is telling. People do not care for the effect this has on teenage girls. They don’t even try to be compassionate. I think this will just become the next thing girls and women will simply have to accept as part of their life and the sexism and objectification that is targeted at them. But “boys will be boys” right?
Because this is not a solution for the people who are actually victimized. It’s just a solution for the people around those who are victimzed, so that they don’t need to change anything or talk (or listen) about it.
A “victim mentality” is a personality trait which makes people feel universally victimized.
How is that applyable here? These kids were targeted for a crime and, in fact, victimized by their peers or possibly even adults.
What would actually beat leaving people alone who were blackmailed and had their privacy and dignity compromised like that, would be hefty punishment for the perpetrators. Those are the people you should look at with scrutinity, instead of concentrating on how the victims should behave.
Photoshopped nude pictures of celebrities (and people the photoshopper knew personally) have been around for at least 30 years at this point. This is not a new issue as far as the legal situation is concerned, just the ease of doing it changed a bit.
You give them free reign to do literally whatever they want with your images the moment you post them. They OWN YOUR PHOTOS. The only reason you don’t know about it is because you’re fucking stupid and don’t read their terms of service.
Signed: person who stopped using sites like Facebook and Instagram for this reason.
Edit: Sorry, I realized that reading isn’t your strong suit which is why you demanded I sift through their ToS for you. It’s under the privacy section of Meta’s terms of service. Anything you post that is public immediately grants them the rights to your image.
You ever put an image on Tinder through Facebook, congrats: consent achieved.
I genuinely do not care if you are aware or otherwise. Your comment proves you’re fucking dumb, and deserve your images being used against you for not protecting yourself from predatory social media sites.
You are right, they own my photos, this of course doesn’t grant them the right to do anything with it and it as well doesn’t give someone else the right, but what do you know? You are some lonely little sit harassing others online.
Delete your CSAM collection and then yourself please. Do something for us all, thanks.
Jesus christ, you’re a fucking idiot. Maybe if you went through English class without writing every report through sparknotes you’d have developed the critical thinking required to understand what a TERMS OF SERVICE agreement is.
It’s not too late, you can always go back to school. Although, reading your replies, you’re still too fucking dumb to gain anything from it.
You literally called me a pedophile for suggesting that you should read the terms of service of a social media website before agreeing to it because you give up rights otherwise.
Jep, women and girls should just stay away from social media. Also, do not appear on other types of photos. Best stay under a blanket all times, since if some guy sees your face you gave him consent to do whatever he likes with that. You really are a pathetic human being if you don’t see the problem with your mindset.
It is in their TERMS OF SERVICE. IF YOU ACCEPT THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE WITHOUT READING THEM, YOU DO NOT GET TO COMPLAIN. THIS IS NOT NEW, YOU ARE JUST STUPID.
This seems like a pretty significant overreaction. Like yes, it’s gross and it feels personal, but it’s not like any of the subjects were willing participants…their reputation is not being damaged. Would they lose their shit about a kid gluing a cut out of their crush’s face over the face of a pornstar in a magazine? Is this really any different from that?
Obviously this is creepy, but the technology is out there, one of those can't put the genie back in the bottle techs. You can and should look at the people generating the images as creeps, but ultimately we as a society need to learn to not put as much veracity or identity in images now.
With that said where the fuck did this model get its training data for 14 year olds. That sounds like a more serious issue.
Not that they aren’t both bad but I hate this false equivalence between images that were created by literally raping a child and filming that rape and images that were created purely from the imagination of the creator. This is what is actually enabling child abuse by treating both identically in legal terms because to the person attracted to children you suddenly made the cost identical while they probably prefer the real thing to a fake thing.
They’re both terrible and illegal to different degrees.
But most people and most legal jurisdictions do not make that distinction and that is my point. I am not saying either should be legal but at the very least one should carry a lot lower punishments, in a similar way that possession of stolen goods and possession of murder weapons are both punished but not with the same severity.
Right, the technology is out there so we as a society need to establish norms, customs, and yes, laws governing its use.
I'm pretty firmly on the side of there being legal consequences for taking pictures of real minors, running them through a service to create nude replicas, and then circulating those pictures. That is wrong on so many levels and could constitute any number of crimes without the AI component including, such as harassment. I mean, intentionally using someone's likeness to circulate embarrassing materials already had legal consequences. This is just a whole other level of ick on top.
Personally I don’t see a difference between using an AI service or plain old Photoshop to create a fake nude picture of someone. Both should be punished in the same way and if law makers haven’t caught up with the Photoshop version after 30 years they likely won’t handle the AI version in this century either.
I would agree, though I wonder about the service mentioned that is dedicated to the process. My comment was in response to someone who seemed to think circulating fake nudes wasn't a problem, regardless of how they were generated.
With that said where the fuck did this model get its training data for 14 year olds.
Nowhere, at least for any model you could get your hands at in public places like civitai. Or, well, it’s not like they can tell whether someone trained on those kinds of pictures but they’re rightly nuking any underage/loli example images, as well as anyone who posts them, from orbit.
Generally speaking models can be very good at mixing concepts they have an understanding of, say a giraffe with zebra stripes, but that doesn’t mean that you can just combine anything – if you try to generate a nude human with zebra fur you’re bound to get body paint, random skimpy zebra-striped clothing, or at most a fursuit, not convincing fur, unless you use a model trained by furries but at that point you’ll have trouble generating faces without muzzles: The AI just doesn’t know how actual zebrakin look like so it’s either copping out or making stuff up.
I’ve never tried nor am I remotely attracted to that age range but I wouldn’t be surprised if a paedophile would complain “these aren’t kids they’re scaled-down adults”. Things like the difference between budding and small breasts, ask a biologist I haven’t seen 14yold breasts in over two decades.
On another note though I’d much rather have paedophiles jack off to generated images than doing anything involving actual children, including creeping around. Lesser of two evils and all that. Therapy, of course, is preferable to both.
I’ll leave the judgement of that to psychologists. What should not be controversial, however, is the amount of direct harm avoided if one can be replaced by the other.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the less shitty.
I did not suggest anything. I expressed a preference: That it’s better if a paedophile jacks off to generated pictures than if they molest actual children. What do you disagree with, there? That both situations are equally bad, that an equal amount of harm is occurring? Have you ever asked a victim about that.
There are laws in place about sexualizing minors.
Just for the record: Not by a far stretch all countries outlaw drawings, fiction, etc., but only as the German term goes “documents of child abuse”.
You can’t just hand wave my response away
You mean your accusation and I tend to do that for civility’s sake as doing otherwise tends to result in shouting matches. It is AFAIK currently unknown whether, by and large, paedophiles having access to simulated material for their sexual gratification increases or decreases the incidence of child abuse happening. I have no idea either, you don’t know better either, and it may very well differ on a case-by-case basis. All I’m saying is that I’d rather have them fapping than molesting children is that so hard to understand and why in the everloving fuck would you disagree with that: If anything it’s you who’s trivialising child abuse (and, look, see, I stopped to ignore your incitement and we’re in an accusatory shouting match)
I asked whether you really meant what I read, you made a statement claiming I said things I very obviously didn’t (because I said the exact opposite).
Had you instead asked “Did you mean to imply that there’s only two options, that we really must select one?” you might have realised that I did, in fact, offer a third one from the very start.
You might not have intended to argue in bad faith but the result is still the same. If we had been talking about what chocolate pudding I would’ve let it slide but given the topic not applying high standards is irresponsible. Be careless in any other argument, but not here. If you want to claim to take the topic seriously then do.
How do you know that these people replace harassment with these pictures? And not just do both, or even increase their fetishes?
AFAIK psychologists simply don’t know, and it might be a case by case thing.
What about the girls who’s pictures were used as material for these generated images?
As I explained, it might not be necessary to have any underage material in the training data.
Generally speaking I didn’t come here to have a deep discussion about a very difficult moral and legal issue, I’ll leave that up to the specialists. I wanted to say something about AI and somehow all answers I get are about the last tacked-on paragraph making a quick statement about me preferring keeping paedophiles away from kids.
It’s not different, it’s all fake, cobbled together from images of other people’s bodies and will show zero authentic details about the subject except what are already known and visible about them.
What the fuck are you talking about? Spreading nude photos of any provenance around at work is definitely an HR violation, and the use of my partner’s face in them (just like pasting their face on a pornstar’s photo) is sexual harassment. Nothing about it being AI generated changes any of that equation except to make it a little more uncanny.
It’s a fad, and how would we deal with you sending your hand drawn pictures around the neighborhood….form a group of concerned moms and raid all of the local art shops to stop the sale of drawing materials?
The genie is out of the bottle. We can shower these types of content with huge attention which will ultimately extend and expand the fad, we can ignore them because they are pointless, or we can try a futile war on AI porn that, like the war on drugs, will ruin a lot of ultimately benign peoples lives in order to crack down on a few legitimately criminal creeps who probably can already be prosecuted according to existing laws.
Why is it not sexual harassment if the target are teenage girls?
In my opinion there should be really impactful punishment for the people who did this. Otherwise there will be more and more people like you who seem to think this is a funny little school prank.
I don’t want to band wagon against you, but I do think it’s important that people who agree with your viewpoint have a chance to understand that the situation is a violation of privacy.
The kids’ reputation is, likely, damaged. You have an underage girl who is already dealing with the confusion and hierarchy of high school. Then (A) someone generates semi-accurate photos of what their naked body looks like and (B) distributes it to others.
Issue (A) is bad because it’s essentially CSAM and also because it’s attempting to access a view of someone that the subject likely hasn’t permitted the generator to have access to. This is a privacy violation and the ethics around it are questionable at best.
Issue (B) is that the generator didn’t stop at the violations of issue (A), but has now shared that material with other people who know the subject without the subject’s consent, and likely without her knowledge of the recipients. This means that the subject now has to perpetually wonder if every person they interact with (friends, teachers, other parents, her own parents) have seen lewd pictures of her. Hopefully you can see how this could disturb a young woman.
Now apply a different situation to it. Suppose you took a test at school or at work that shows you as dumb (like, laughably dumb; enough to make you feel subconscious). Even if you don’t think it’s a fair test, this test exists. Now, assume that someone shared this test with your friends, co-workers, and even your parents without you knowing exactly who received it. And instead of everyone saying “it’s just a dumb test — it doesn’t mean anything”, they decide it means something about you. Every hour or so, you walk by someone or interact with someone who chuckles or cracks a joke at your expense. You’re not allowed by your community to move on from this test.
Before your test was released, you could blend in. Now, you’re the person everyone is looking at and judging. Think of that added anxiety on top of everything else you have to deal with.
I appreciate your intentions, but your examples are just not up to the standard needed to treat AI generated nudes any differently than a nude magazine collage with kids’ crushes faces in it.
As uncanny as the nudes might be, they are NOT accurate. People know this and they are going to learn one way or another to adjust their definition of “real”. No character details like moles or their actual skin tone, or anything like this will be accurately portrayed. They have no reason to think “someone has seen their naked body”. Yeah, if someone tells them to worry about it, they will, as any young person will, but why? The bigger the deal we make of it, the worse it is, and the litmus test is, is it bad if we decide to ignore it and teach kids that ai generated nudes have nothing to do with them and that they can safely ignore them, then they do basically zero harm.
How is your test example related to this at all? In the one case, my face and clothed picture is acquired likely with my implied permission from social media and modifications that i did not authorize are added to it and it is then distributed, making me look naked and having no bearing on my person or character (since the ai doesn’t actually know what i look like naked) so no conclusion anyone would draw from it constitutes a disclosure of information about me. The test example constitutes a clear disclosure with provenance to establish the validity of the information, quire a different scenario. It is true that AI chat bots can be jail-broken to release my previous questions which might reveal things about my character that i do not wish to disclose, but that is a different issue and unrelated to these nude generators.
I’m not saying handing these nudes to a kid or blackmailing them is not criminal or harassment, just that the technology and medium should have almost no bearing on how we treat this.
Buddy, I want to let you know that I wrote a big rebuttal and then accidentally canceled my comment and it got erased. In my response I disagreed with your original argument and your rebuttal as well, but that I respected the time it took to share your thoughts. I’m so sad my dumb comment got deleted, lol
Know that I appreciate your lengthy response back to me.
Issue (A) is bad because it’s essentially CSAM and also because it’s attempting to access a view of someone that the subject likely hasn’t permitted the generator to have access to. This is a privacy violation and the ethics around it are questionable at best.
That part is not a privacy violation, the same way someone drawing in a canvas their own impression of what a bank vault looks like on the inside does not constitute a trespassing / violation of privacy of the bank. Unless the AI in question used actual nudes of them as a basis, but then we wouldn’t need the extra AI step for this to be a problem, right? Otherwise, I’m rather sure that the actual privacy violation starts at (B).
Ofc, none of that makes it less of a problem, but it does feel to me like it subverts a potential angle for fighting against this.
Did your picture got taken and shared as a teenager? Did you get heavily sexualised and harassed? Believe me, it feels like a nightmare even if no one is telling you that it should feel like a nightmare.
Take your “sexual harassment is only bad to teenage girls if you tell them” shit elsewhere.
I simply pointed out that of course it is illegal.
I’m not so sure. Drawn kiddie porn is legal in a lot of places. AI stuff might be the same, especially since there’s not a lot of laws about AI imaginery to begin with.
Now you agree that it is illegal
Ah the legal precedent of calling a weirdo a weirdo. I’m not gonna make kiddie porn for you, legal or not.
The argument was about whether AI kiddie porn is legal and you asked me to make some. Weird as shit and has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Good point. What I mean by that is you can modify the prompt or the output to an extent where it can be argued “Nah, that’s not her. It was just inspired by her for this result”
Is it illegal to draw from imagination someone else nude?
Fake nudes have been around since the days of Kazaa and eDonkey. It’s nothing new. The only thing hard regulation is going to do is to keep the public unaware of how AI can be used (and make them unable to defend themselves from those who use it for unsavoury purposes).
These outrages that keep getting spammed all over the Internet calling for regulation smell horribly of corporate astroturfing.
“You’re a white American male in college and it shows”
Very far off. Not even the right continent.
“How on earth is this corporate astroturfing? Corporations fucking love AI. They don’t want any restrictions on them.”
Corporations have been calling for regulation on AI, so that it’s only allowed as a service from them instead of being something anyone can do at home on their own hardware.
It’s the same with a lot of the artist “outrage” over AI replacing them.
Add comment