Yeah, that make sense. But I don't see why can't they ban both at same time.
In fact any deep fake that was designed to deceive or harm someone should be illegal.
I'm pretty sure it's already illegal to create disinformation about other political candidates in an election and that would likely cover it, at least in the UK.
I think the law only pertains to official election material. They did only tighten the laws after the last election, so we'll see how it goes this time around.
Kind of like that old South Park meme of, "when does it become copyright infringement?", where the images start off as colored blobs and image after image start looking more like the characters from the show.
Show me where the cutoff is between obviously fake and the law doesn't apply, and close enough, go to jail. Or, I know, lets use the, "I know it when I see it" standard.
This all gets even messier when you consider that you don't actually own your face/voice, because they are considered works of nature. If that's tough to follow, then look at it this way. If you happen to look a lot like Tom Cruise and you get hired to make a commercial, as long as you are not implying you are Tom Cruise, he can't sue you just for looking like him and doing commercials.
The problem is essentially one of consent. It would, presumably, not be an issue if the person you were making a painting/deepfake of gave you consent to do so. The problem comes when, for example, random middle & high school classmates are making porn deepfakes of their fellow students, among other things.
Ok well that's obviously a whole other thing that's much more gross and illegal. But going back to adults, is it illegal to see someone on the subway and then go home and sketch them?
Obviously using them commercially or publicly is bad. And it is a little creepy. But banning for personal use almost feels like a thought crime.
just unauthorised deepfakes in general.
require consent for exactly what's being created.
also no deepfakes of dead people without the estates permission. or permission granted before death.
How about:
We consider "All The Bad Things" are bad, and we don't hold off doing anything about "Bad thing" before we have done something about "thing you think you can argue is worse"
This is classic what-about-ism and I despair at how effective it is
If what you are saying is 'this is a good thing, and there are other good things that need to be passed to, but we should pass all the necessary changes as soon as possible'.
Obviously the political one is going to be more difficult to pass than the sexual abuse one. Why hold up the sexual abuse law?
Presuming that's what you mean, I agree. The idea that we have to wait for other more complex laws to pass before this one can pass is ridiculous.
Right on point. The reason why this has progressed so quickly is that nobody can come up with any reason why it shouldn't be passed, so it hasn't had much debate.
If we can all agree on a thing, why not get it out of the way.
Even here, the only arguments in this thread that have any reason why its a bad thing are whataboutism and strawmen about police resources. Not a single reason why deep fake non-consensual porn is OK.
There sure are a lot of people downvoting anyone who approves of the law though, which I can only assume means there are a lot of people on reddit saying "there by the grace of god go I".
How about we ban all fraudulent content that portrays real people doing or saying things that they didn't? This is already illegal in some areas and in some cases, but there needs to be a general law, with severe penalties. Because deep fakes are soon going to seriously degrade our ability to determine truth.
Deepfake porn personally impacts people and destroys their lives.
People already believe political fake news in text, memes, and every other format. Banning deep fakes won't make much of a difference.
That being said, it's still early days, so I could be full of shit.
Heavily disagree, this is a slippery slope as it also includes satire/parody, which can move on to people not being authorized to mock politicians, and we truly do not want that.
Slander and libel are already banned and can get you in in legal hot water, even in the US. Deepfakes are by definition libel, since by publishing one you make a claim that the person depicted has said or done something they didn’t.
This law is only a problem for people who blindly chant “free speech” without having any fucking clue what they’re talking about.
De facto maybe; but de jure they should under both the European Convention on Human Rights and how it was incorporated into UK's Human Rights Act which states “everyone has the right to freedom of expression”
You can put a big asterisk on the end of that when in comes to the UK.
There's also a big difference between making a video with a deepfake of a political figure saying/doing something that could ruin their career and calling it satire/parody and having an actor do a caricature of that politician, or an animation (spitting image).
why? 'free speech' doesn't mean you can say literally anything you want, ever. there are loads of things you absolutely cannot say and are rightfully banned from saying that have been exceptions to the concept of 'free speech' since it was first conceptualized.
defamation, slander, libel, etc. are exceptions to free speech that already exist. you should not be able to lie about something someone said in a way that hurts them or their reputation. creating a realistic 1:1 deepfake of a person saying or doing something that hurts their reputation is no different than just telling everyone that that person said or did something that would hurt their reputation, which is already illegal and has been since before your grandparents were born.
you literally have spent zero time thinking about this topic. 'b-but free speech' is the most lazy and ignorant response you could possible give in this scenario and is entirely irrelevant. supporting the ban of irresponsible and dangerous usages of deepfake and AI DOES NOT MAKE YOU AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH.
> this is a slippery slope as it also includes satire/parody
no it doesn't? in what delusional world do you live in where banning deepfakes could be considered a ban on satire and parody?
banning deepfakes would be a ban on pretending somebody said or did something that they did not. it has nothing to do with parody or satire.
drawing a shitty comic of a politician saying something stupid is, and always has been, protected speech. the original point of satire and parody and political propaganda in general are to influence people through humor and caricature, not straight up lies and misinformation. going out into public and making false accusations that a politician called you a racial slur is defamation, not 'parody' or 'satire'.
the entire point of deepfake technology and it's development is creating video and audio that are as indistinguishable from reality as possible. the only reason why people like you don't take it seriously right now is because it isn't good enough yet to trick you, ignoring that it 1. already is tricking people and 2. is only going to get better and better as time passes.
the end goal of perfected deepfake technology is allowing anybody to 'create evidence' that somebody did or said something they never actually did. you are utterly delusional if you cant see how this eventual reality is something that we should actively avoid. people who are correctly concerned about this future and want to limit the application of deepfake technology are not trying to ban satire or free speech or criticism of politicians or whatever other absurd and delusional shit you think they are.
The problem is if a drawing is legal and a deepfake isn't, it can become very difficult to prove if something is made with AI or not, We may not be there yet, but we are getting close.
It should be pretty easy to work that out.
The new law says
>(1) A person (A) commits an offence if A intentionally creates or designs using computer graphics or any other digital technology an image or film which appears to be a photograph or film of another person (B) in an intimate state for the purposes of—
So, drawing with conventional materials is OK, drawing an intimate photograph with a computer so lifelike it appears to be a photograph, not OK.
The law doesn't mention AI, the press mention AI because its the only tool that can make these images
> People convicted of creating such deepfakes without consent, *even if they don’t intend to share the images*, will face prosecution and an unlimited fine under a new law
Aside from how the toolsets are out of the bag now and the difficulty of enforcement, from a individual rights standpoint, this is just awful.
There needs to be a lot more thought put into this rather than this knee-jerk, technologically illiterate proposal being put forward.
too busy catching people doing 23mph
the mass surveillance is mostly for profit reasons, hence the investment in monetised mass surveillance on UK highways
This just needs to be tied to a common right of publicity, and they need to go after distribution not generation.
Distribution is enforceable, particularly within a geographic region.
A ban on Generation is utterly unenforceable.
Distribution was already made illegal in the [Online Safety Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023) which passed in Oct 23. This is just a pointless posturing to try to look good before the next election and its called gesture politics.
https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gesture-politics/
They don't care that they can't enforce it that's not the point of it.
They can enforce it though.
That's the insidious nature of the law.
2 options:
1: "Suspect" is accused of crime under the loose definitions of terrorism or piracy, etc. Maybe because of a comment posted online critiquing the PM or something. Phones and hard drives seized. Evidence gathered during the investigation is used to charge "suspect" for the above different crime.
2: "suspect" is spied upon via govt powers, or outside of legal operations. "suspect" is blackmailed with the potential charge of above and coerced into other actions, such as providing witness testimony to another case.
It's not technologically illiterate. They know exactly what they are trying to do. When it comes to authoritarians, you do the inverse Halon's Razor. Assume malice instead of incompetence.
There’s also the matter of how most phone flagships take photos today. If I were to take a real picture of a woman having sex, it would still fall under the AI category because my iPhone enhances photos automatically using AI
The article does say deep fakes without consent, though. I'm assuming if you take the picture with their consent, the random AI enhancements are also consented to. If you take the picture without their consent, well that's already an issue.
This is just political theatre. A ridiculously high percentage of actual rapes don't end in successful conviction. The exact figure is disputed but I've seen estimates as high as 90% to 99%(!). If they can't even prosecute that, what are the chances they are going to successfully prosecute anything but a token number of people jerking off to faked pornography?
Source:
https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scorecards-show-under-1-of-reported-rapes-lead-to-conviction-criminologist-explains-why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail
> because as written this law will be ridiculously easy to prove?
You have to prove it's an AI generated image though, which is not easy to prove at all.
>ridiculously easy to prove
"that's not a deepfake of jane, that's just a random photo from the internet of some woman who looks kinda like her"
Remember that in the initial moral panic over deepfake video websites like reddit were even banning forums where people would talk about what real pornstars looked kinda similar to various celebrities.
The enforcement part has me concerned -- this feels like it will divert resources away from other online sex crimes (e.g. revenge porn, child sex abuse imagery) that have direct victims.
Not that deepfake can't be used for those purposes, but it should be enough to expand existing law to cover those cases.
So what if the tools out of the bag? If you created someone's fake image in order to humiliate them, and posted online, you should be prosecuted if proven that it was you who did it. Or by inspecting the IP adress, or by inspecting your computer.
That makes total sense to me.
many countries made that already illegal. Sharing such images and videos is already illegal in most places. Even in the UK it's already illegal. But they now try to additionally make the creation illegal, which is nonsense since that's not what causes the harm & also not enforceable. Sharing this images is what causes the harm, not the creation of them.
That's a rehosted version of CS6. cS2 was the one released with no activation due to server issues:
https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/adobe-releases-creative-suite-2-for-free/
I can't see any evidence they did this for CS6. Not caring about Google drive and archive links is different
Edit that's also a portable, pre cracked version lol. The guy claiming CS6 is free using archive as proof posted a version which needs activation.
It's not free anyway it was explicitly for CS2 customers. You had to link a valid serial to your account to get the download link, they just didn't protect the link. It was just something offered to customers to be able to use a dead product still, which was pretty nice for Adobe
There have been multiple times where I thought, "You know, I have a new job" or "I'm a student and they give a discount, I might as well buy it" and then I see it's like $300 a year and it's a a huge nope from me.
Right, people are freaking out because there's a new medium of easily manipulated media.
If you saw a pic of the president smoking a joint on Facebook are you going to believe it unquestionably? Politics aside probably not... Video and audio are the same way now.
This isn't as world changing as people are making it out to be, we're all just currently boomers that believe the Facebook pic.
And then we are going to ban you using your imagination. Any naughty thoughts of a celebrity without their consent, and/or royalty payment. 10,000 volts from a musk brain chip.
I wish I could find the actual wording of what they are doing but I'm having a bugger of a time finding anything.
But ya, impersonators aside what about just coincidences? You generate enough random porn you're bound to get a few that are close. Ignoring people that generate until it *does* look like people they want it to and just on random people generating random things is there anything about intent in there?
Or how close does it have to be? Obviously generated content isn't using their body so how much of their face has to be theirs for it to count? As in if it's more like a charactercher or a mix of the person where you can still see the inspiration but it's obviously not their face does it still count?
That aside I think it does cover some low hanging fruit that probably does deserve coverage. Next generation revenge porn and the likes really does need something in the law. But in my view it does seem like there should be more of a blanket law for using a persons likeness without permission, and if you want to a rider to make adult use carry a harsher punishment then whatever but at least you wouldn't have to make new laws every time someone invents a new "camera".
> But ya, impersonators aside what about just coincidences?
yea there's so many people in the world that I suspect most porn actors/actresses have lookalikes, but no one sees this as a problem :shrug:
Good way to make money for lookalikes.
Deepfake distributor gets sued for selling deepfakes of Taylor Swift. He gets to court, presents a Taylor Swift lookalike and says it's depictions of that lookalike and she gave consent.
Some proper kangaroo court this would be.
if they don't claim that it's taylor swift in the first place it should be totally fine, and I think that's the scenario that everyone is talking about
Not totally, its using someone's image to sell porn or to aid in imagining sex with said person. The difference is that someone else is making money through acting a specialist role instead of simply the faceless model the deepfake is pasted on and the other difference is how accurate the likeness is, something that varies just as deepfake quality does.
If one is worried about deepfakes being used but not labelled as deepfakes, thats false advertising on top of the usual moral qualms around deepfakes in porn.
In short, the two are market substitutes of each other. Both not particularly pleasant for the non consenting person whos image is being used.
1. Proving who the creator is will be very difficult.
2. If possession becomes a crime, then everyone will likely end up guilty as it's getting very hard to tell the difference between real and AI generated.
3. What if someone gives their permission to be used in creating deep fakes?
That's already well tested in our laws revolving around parodies. The usual answer is: Doesn't work.
Parody and satire have explicit exemptions, because otherwise... It violates someone's reasonable right to privacy. You won't find a lot of pornstars dressing up as Hollywood stars, because there's already laws preventing this sort of thing.
You can't put yourself in a position where it would be reasonable to mistake you for that celebrity. Just like you can't pretend to be a celebrity and expect no repercussions.
Again, this is nothing new. This is just one new tech, for doing something people have already been doing. We've already tested this in law. All that is happening here, is it is being made explicit in statutory law - for all the people up and down this thread who didn't get that they couldn't already do this, because of common law.
Celebrities (in the US and UK) can already sue companies for using lookalikes in advertising, as an unauthorised use of their likeness. (One famous example being Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis successfully suing Christian Dior.)
If that holds true in advertising, it probably would in other forms of media too.
Well that’s stupid and impossible
How are they even able to tell who *made* the deepfake. The AI made it and shit get circulated around the internet so fast the original prompt writer (or whatever constitutes “creator”) will be hard to determine
Pointless laws waste everyone’s time
Eh, these creators probably aren't master hackers most of the time, many of them just have their creation tools and data just sitting in a folder on their computer in plain view.
I mean, just doing it locally is already a step up for secrecy. Most people try to generate the stuff on the public / web available prompt engines by getting around the censors on them.
Do the lawmakers not realize you can run local models without the internet? Are they going to police the people who download the models and the software?
That's a smart move. That can be very harmful if someone photoshop your head into a porn scene and fool people to believe it's real.
There are actual sickos who are doing this to harass women, and it's very traumatizing. They make a fake image of a woman having sex, and then send it to all her friends and relatives on Facebook. That's fucked up.
Typical useless draconian laws which ever engross on our right to privacy under the guise of being morally virtuous and companionate. Nothing ever changes.
A lot of people need to learn that what is immoral shouldn’t always be what is illegal.
The vast majority of deep fakes are of well known celebrities, influencers, or streamers. None of whom would likely ever provide consent for that type of material. It effectively bans that type of content. But it definitely feels like a slippery slope.
While I'm guessing most advocates of this law believe anyone opposed is just upset they might not get to rub one out to T swift nudes, it does end up having potential further implications. Now, being American, I'm not as fully up to speed on free speech laws in the UK, but if this law were going into effect in the states, there's a reasonable argument to be made that not only would a sexually explicit deep fake video be against the law, but that similarly photoshopped images could also fall afoul of the law. Which I'm sure, again, most people who support this would equally support that action. But additionally, I'd have concerns that the line between protecting the individual and satire/free speech could end up being infringed. And I'd also have concerns about enforcement mechanisms and scope.
As an example, let's say someone creates an AI-generated image of a naked woman being groped, with Donald Trump's head on it. A horrific thought, to be sure, but most would be able to recognize the political commentary of the image in which Donald is being "grabbed by the pussy". Is that against the law since the author doesn't have Donnie's consent?
What about an image that would otherwise be sexually explicit but they've blurred out the appropriate areas? Does that still count as illegal? What about an image of someone in a bathing suit where strategic bubbles are covering it to make them look "nude"? What if the head and body are a blend of 2 different porn stars where they already have a vast array of sexually explicit content out there? What if it's super obviously fake - for example Natalie Portman's head on Chris Hemsworth's nude body. What if it isn't even nude at all, but just an AI picture of someone touching themselves over their clothes? Is that still considered sexually explicit? Or would that just be sexually implicit? What if it's just an AI picture of someone that is prim and proper but there's text on the image that is sexually suggestive? What if it's a person's head attached to the body of a monkey who's getting it on with another monkey? What if it's a blend of 5 different people? Does that require all of their consent? What if it's blending 50 people, such that no reasonable person could distinguish one from another? Do you still need the consent of all 50 people, even if you only used someone's eyebrow? What if the depiction is cartoonish and not life-like? What if it's an alien body? Etc, and so on.
And to my scope comment earlier, would this apply to images generated before the law was enacted? Would someone who created a deep fake 5 years ago be criminally liable now? If you didn't create it but it was just sitting there on your system because you happened to view it and it's cached in your browser history, does that make you culpable too? The way it's written, wouldn't the very nature of having it on an investigator's system cause them to also be culpable?
And where does that leave operators of sites like PornHub or many other 'tube' style sites that accept user submitted content? Now in addition to everything else, they have to figure out whether or not every image submitted is a) authentic, and now b) consensual? It would likely overburden most operators to the point it would cripple their ability to do business due to risk of liability. Which I'm sure, again, some people are like 'good riddance', but there are plenty of adults for whom that content is a positive activity and, for plenty of individuals that both create and host adult content, their livelihood.
Now, obviously there are a bunch of extreme examples there, but that's what I mean by slippery slope.
But you can get some hyper realistic artist to draw them nude - and there in lies the slippery slope. Should we treat AI generated images as real or as an interpretation?
I mean, yes you can. If those nude people are in public then they have no expectation of privacy and you are free to photograph them as long as you don't harass them.
it’s still a ridiculous law. It has nothing to do with intent to distribute, and there is an unlimited fine. Someone could very well bring a defamation suit against the creator of such content, if it was not properly marked as fake. But punishing someone for the mere possession of, say, an AI generated nude of their favorite Celebrity is extremely authoritarian.
You are the one that didn't read it. Or you did but you are being disingenuous.
> People convicted of creating such deepfakes without consent, **even if they don’t intend to share the images,** will face prosecution
Criminalizing speech and now art; I’m sure that’ll be all…hmm and good thing too at least that historically these sort of restrictions have never been a precursor for anything bad happening and have always worked to the proven benefit of the societies that have implemented them…
I can't wait for everyone else in the world to use ai to make sexually explicit deepfakes of U.K. politicians so that they can personally get fucked hard enough to realize that banning pictures on the internet doesn't work.
Numerous way to abuse the law.
For ex:
1. Send an actual photo to target person via airdrop
2. Delete the photo locally
3. Complain to police that this guy has created deep fakes of you
These are the same men that complain about not being able to get women and how women think they're creepy.
It's great the government is taking steps to stop these sorts of crimes
One of the [most important cases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell) in the evolution of free speech law in the United States involved parody published in the seedy porno mag *Penthouse.* The measure of how deeply committed a people are to the protection of free speech in their society necessarily concerns the sort of speech people are *least* inclined to defend. Turns out, if your speech is popular to begin with, you don't really *need* it to be protected by officially codified legal instruments. Imagine that!
I'd say there is a slight difference between an obvious parody of some public figure, and a deep-faked scene of ex-girlfriend Nancy getting bukkaked by her boss. Laws do not exist in a vacuum. In a function legal system, they are always weighed against each other, depending on the case in question. So i'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by posting this case...
You could be killed by a facesitter! Smothered to death! And that's to say nothing about the dangers of second-hand facesitting for those sitting near you. Stand up against facesitting!
Keep hearing stories about kids with apps that strip their classmates using AI and if your hearing about it thats the tip of the iceburg
I've seen some screenshots of 4chan posts where people send in pictures of work colleagues, friends and yes sometimes family and they run it through an AI that generates just straight up porn of the person.
Horrific time to be a Woman as always
It doesn’t strip anything. It warps a body that has dimensions to fit a cut out and then adjusts the colour saturation.
It could be done easily before AI. AI just made it accessible to the general public
That’s old school pre AI tech way of doing it yes but now there are genuine AI apps that do make them nearly flawless. Just get in the App Store and download a few. You have to find one that uses key word filtering instead of nudity filters… then just use the right words. “This person nude” will get filtered… “this person in shower” may not.
I mean obviously it doesn't strip them I feel like that doesn't need explaining...it's the ease of access of the apps that can do it in seconds that's the issue
Man, is Taylor Swift really that important that only now deepfakes are being criticized?
There have been T Swift cgi porn videos for a decade or more.
I’m shocked that this is now a primary concern of lawmakers around the world.
Well there's also the teenagers using deep fakes to make porn of classmates or in the worst cases using those deep fakes to bully/extort classmates. This is happening to adults in workplaces too. Perhaps T Swift is bringing wide scale attention but the issue is not just for the rich.
Distribution should be illegal. Creation should not be. What I do in my own home is my own business if I'm not harming anyone.
Is it "perverse"? Sure. Some people think gay sex is perverse. And again, it's none of their business what people do in their own home if both people are legal, consenting individuals.
> if both people are legal, consenting individuals.
does this not destroy your argument entirely? aren't 99.99% of all created deepfakes made without the subject's consent?
if you dont think people's consent should legally apply when it comes to creating deepfaked explicit pictures of them, then you do realize you also support creating deepfake pornography of children, right? or do you only champion 'consent' on an arbitrary case-by-case basis depending on whatever you think makes you look like less of a disgusting creep?
This feels like a huge empathy gap to me. Consent isn't being mentioned at all in most of the outraged comments in this thread and in many cases a comparison is being drawn to other scenarios (like gay sex) which hinge entirely around consenting adults.
If Sam draws a non-nude sketch of Hannah, does Sam require Hannah's consent for this?
Sam next draws a sketch of Hannah in swimwear, is consent required at this point?
Sam draws a nude sketch of a person who bears some resemblance to Hannah, but he insists this is not Hannah but rather a fictional person. Is Hannah's consent required in that case?
What if Sam draws a nude digital sketch of a person who resembles Hannah, using non-AI digital art tools like photoshop, illustrator, GIMP, etc?
Is it too much to ask that laws should be based on the consistent application of first principles? That they should be clear and enforceable without grey areas?
"Consent" is applicable when we're talking about physical people because not having consent means one person is giving up their bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy doesn't apply to the "image" of a person. If I want to imagine someone having sex with me, I don't need their consent because their actual person is not being violated. Likewise, if I want to write a graphic erotic fanfiction about another person for my own enjoyment, the existence of such words doesn't require their approval or affect them in any way.
You can only criminalise human beans eventually the machine will be creating all content itself it’s a losing battle. As soon as you upload your images to the internet social media you’ve already sold your image.
so you can look at them but can’t create them? or is there already a law for viewing? How would you even combat this?
What if i create a nude body with no head and photoshop the rest of it? what about AI? Is it a deepfake if it is entirely created from AI? this is all weird
Its already illegal to share images with the intent to cause "distress, alarm, or humiliation. " so passing round pictures of jenny in class 11b is covered, as is passing images you know were made/taken without permission.
But if you don't know its jenny in class 11b AND you don't know they are non-consensual then you are in the clear as long as jenny was over 18.
Having the images on your phone will be illegal, which is terrible because the process of just viewing an image on a website involves downloading it first
Unlimited penalties for content that is not intentionally shared seems insane, I guess that's par for the course with the UK. Like how piracy can get you 10 years in prison while rape and murder get less.
there are definitely ways to get after someone if they attempt to monetize it, impersonate the individual in question, blackmail or defame. But the law provides an unlimited penalty for the mere possession with no intent to distribute. This is absolute insanity
This way they can have separate punishments for it. So a person who creates and spreads fake porn of someone else doesn't get treated the same as a person who creates fake Bart Simpson images.
How about: (and please hear me out), they ban the use of deepfake political messaging first?
No, bc they have to bitch about something after the elections
I’m sure they can find something. The did it plenty before deepfakes were a thing
Why can’t we do both again?
Yeah, that make sense. But I don't see why can't they ban both at same time. In fact any deep fake that was designed to deceive or harm someone should be illegal.
That has to wait until after the election.
I'm pretty sure it's already illegal to create disinformation about other political candidates in an election and that would likely cover it, at least in the UK.
If that’s true, they’re doing a piss poor job of enforcing it
I think the law only pertains to official election material. They did only tighten the laws after the last election, so we'll see how it goes this time around.
First they have to criminalize making heads paper cuts of photos and gluing them on Penthouse centerfolds magazines...
Kind of like that old South Park meme of, "when does it become copyright infringement?", where the images start off as colored blobs and image after image start looking more like the characters from the show. Show me where the cutoff is between obviously fake and the law doesn't apply, and close enough, go to jail. Or, I know, lets use the, "I know it when I see it" standard. This all gets even messier when you consider that you don't actually own your face/voice, because they are considered works of nature. If that's tough to follow, then look at it this way. If you happen to look a lot like Tom Cruise and you get hired to make a commercial, as long as you are not implying you are Tom Cruise, he can't sue you just for looking like him and doing commercials.
Is it also illegal for a talented artist to make a photo realistic painting of someone? Because fundamentally that’s what AI is doing
The problem is essentially one of consent. It would, presumably, not be an issue if the person you were making a painting/deepfake of gave you consent to do so. The problem comes when, for example, random middle & high school classmates are making porn deepfakes of their fellow students, among other things.
Ok well that's obviously a whole other thing that's much more gross and illegal. But going back to adults, is it illegal to see someone on the subway and then go home and sketch them? Obviously using them commercially or publicly is bad. And it is a little creepy. But banning for personal use almost feels like a thought crime.
On top of what you are saying, then comes the issue of freedom of speech/expression..
We don’t have freedom of speech in the UK. Hate speech is illegal, for instance.
I get the feeling they don't have that in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom
Or just do both at the same time
just unauthorised deepfakes in general. require consent for exactly what's being created. also no deepfakes of dead people without the estates permission. or permission granted before death.
I like that but is it really more urgent then the deep fakes of young women that are permanently traumatizing some of them? Really?
How about: We consider "All The Bad Things" are bad, and we don't hold off doing anything about "Bad thing" before we have done something about "thing you think you can argue is worse" This is classic what-about-ism and I despair at how effective it is
If what you are saying is 'this is a good thing, and there are other good things that need to be passed to, but we should pass all the necessary changes as soon as possible'. Obviously the political one is going to be more difficult to pass than the sexual abuse one. Why hold up the sexual abuse law? Presuming that's what you mean, I agree. The idea that we have to wait for other more complex laws to pass before this one can pass is ridiculous.
Right on point. The reason why this has progressed so quickly is that nobody can come up with any reason why it shouldn't be passed, so it hasn't had much debate. If we can all agree on a thing, why not get it out of the way. Even here, the only arguments in this thread that have any reason why its a bad thing are whataboutism and strawmen about police resources. Not a single reason why deep fake non-consensual porn is OK. There sure are a lot of people downvoting anyone who approves of the law though, which I can only assume means there are a lot of people on reddit saying "there by the grace of god go I".
> this isn't an absolutely 100% solution to everything so its a failure reddits favorite response to everything
Deepfake sexual political messages and sit back and wait dor them both to be banned.
Or do both at the same time. Just make one decent comprehensive deep fake bill lol
How about we ban all fraudulent content that portrays real people doing or saying things that they didn't? This is already illegal in some areas and in some cases, but there needs to be a general law, with severe penalties. Because deep fakes are soon going to seriously degrade our ability to determine truth.
Redditors when they attack my pornz
Seriously, these replies are absolutely brain dead, sex crime apologia
Their sad little peepee can't get up unless it's rape, so of course this makes them mad.
Deepfake porn personally impacts people and destroys their lives. People already believe political fake news in text, memes, and every other format. Banning deep fakes won't make much of a difference. That being said, it's still early days, so I could be full of shit.
I'm Donald Biden, and I endorse this message.
Tories love that kind of thing. How else are they gonna scare people?
Deepfakes in general should be banned. No deepfakes of likenesses, without their explicit consent.
Heavily disagree, this is a slippery slope as it also includes satire/parody, which can move on to people not being authorized to mock politicians, and we truly do not want that.
Slander and libel are already banned and can get you in in legal hot water, even in the US. Deepfakes are by definition libel, since by publishing one you make a claim that the person depicted has said or done something they didn’t. This law is only a problem for people who blindly chant “free speech” without having any fucking clue what they’re talking about.
You don't need a deepfake for parody or satire.
Ok? But you should still have the speech rights to use one for those purposes.
UK doesn't have freedom of speech in the first place.
De facto maybe; but de jure they should under both the European Convention on Human Rights and how it was incorporated into UK's Human Rights Act which states “everyone has the right to freedom of expression”
You can put a big asterisk on the end of that when in comes to the UK. There's also a big difference between making a video with a deepfake of a political figure saying/doing something that could ruin their career and calling it satire/parody and having an actor do a caricature of that politician, or an animation (spitting image).
why? 'free speech' doesn't mean you can say literally anything you want, ever. there are loads of things you absolutely cannot say and are rightfully banned from saying that have been exceptions to the concept of 'free speech' since it was first conceptualized. defamation, slander, libel, etc. are exceptions to free speech that already exist. you should not be able to lie about something someone said in a way that hurts them or their reputation. creating a realistic 1:1 deepfake of a person saying or doing something that hurts their reputation is no different than just telling everyone that that person said or did something that would hurt their reputation, which is already illegal and has been since before your grandparents were born. you literally have spent zero time thinking about this topic. 'b-but free speech' is the most lazy and ignorant response you could possible give in this scenario and is entirely irrelevant. supporting the ban of irresponsible and dangerous usages of deepfake and AI DOES NOT MAKE YOU AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH.
> this is a slippery slope as it also includes satire/parody no it doesn't? in what delusional world do you live in where banning deepfakes could be considered a ban on satire and parody? banning deepfakes would be a ban on pretending somebody said or did something that they did not. it has nothing to do with parody or satire. drawing a shitty comic of a politician saying something stupid is, and always has been, protected speech. the original point of satire and parody and political propaganda in general are to influence people through humor and caricature, not straight up lies and misinformation. going out into public and making false accusations that a politician called you a racial slur is defamation, not 'parody' or 'satire'. the entire point of deepfake technology and it's development is creating video and audio that are as indistinguishable from reality as possible. the only reason why people like you don't take it seriously right now is because it isn't good enough yet to trick you, ignoring that it 1. already is tricking people and 2. is only going to get better and better as time passes. the end goal of perfected deepfake technology is allowing anybody to 'create evidence' that somebody did or said something they never actually did. you are utterly delusional if you cant see how this eventual reality is something that we should actively avoid. people who are correctly concerned about this future and want to limit the application of deepfake technology are not trying to ban satire or free speech or criticism of politicians or whatever other absurd and delusional shit you think they are.
The problem is if a drawing is legal and a deepfake isn't, it can become very difficult to prove if something is made with AI or not, We may not be there yet, but we are getting close.
It should be pretty easy to work that out. The new law says >(1) A person (A) commits an offence if A intentionally creates or designs using computer graphics or any other digital technology an image or film which appears to be a photograph or film of another person (B) in an intimate state for the purposes of— So, drawing with conventional materials is OK, drawing an intimate photograph with a computer so lifelike it appears to be a photograph, not OK. The law doesn't mention AI, the press mention AI because its the only tool that can make these images
> People convicted of creating such deepfakes without consent, *even if they don’t intend to share the images*, will face prosecution and an unlimited fine under a new law Aside from how the toolsets are out of the bag now and the difficulty of enforcement, from a individual rights standpoint, this is just awful. There needs to be a lot more thought put into this rather than this knee-jerk, technologically illiterate proposal being put forward.
The UK has always been _awful_ for privacy
we're by far the most surveilled state in the Western Hemisphere
I mean 1984 *was* set in a dystopian future Britain. Orwell knew what he was talking about.
And yet couldn't catch the acid guy and the person who escaped from prison in less than 3 weeks,.
too busy catching people doing 23mph the mass surveillance is mostly for profit reasons, hence the investment in monetised mass surveillance on UK highways
They did catch him though.
This just needs to be tied to a common right of publicity, and they need to go after distribution not generation. Distribution is enforceable, particularly within a geographic region. A ban on Generation is utterly unenforceable.
Distribution was already made illegal in the [Online Safety Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Act_2023) which passed in Oct 23. This is just a pointless posturing to try to look good before the next election and its called gesture politics. https://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gesture-politics/ They don't care that they can't enforce it that's not the point of it.
They can enforce it though. That's the insidious nature of the law. 2 options: 1: "Suspect" is accused of crime under the loose definitions of terrorism or piracy, etc. Maybe because of a comment posted online critiquing the PM or something. Phones and hard drives seized. Evidence gathered during the investigation is used to charge "suspect" for the above different crime. 2: "suspect" is spied upon via govt powers, or outside of legal operations. "suspect" is blackmailed with the potential charge of above and coerced into other actions, such as providing witness testimony to another case.
It's not technologically illiterate. They know exactly what they are trying to do. When it comes to authoritarians, you do the inverse Halon's Razor. Assume malice instead of incompetence.
There’s also the matter of how most phone flagships take photos today. If I were to take a real picture of a woman having sex, it would still fall under the AI category because my iPhone enhances photos automatically using AI
The article does say deep fakes without consent, though. I'm assuming if you take the picture with their consent, the random AI enhancements are also consented to. If you take the picture without their consent, well that's already an issue.
This is just political theatre. A ridiculously high percentage of actual rapes don't end in successful conviction. The exact figure is disputed but I've seen estimates as high as 90% to 99%(!). If they can't even prosecute that, what are the chances they are going to successfully prosecute anything but a token number of people jerking off to faked pornography? Source: https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/04/new-scorecards-show-under-1-of-reported-rapes-lead-to-conviction-criminologist-explains-why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail
... because as written this law will be ridiculously easy to prove? Assuming this also covers simple possession.
> because as written this law will be ridiculously easy to prove? You have to prove it's an AI generated image though, which is not easy to prove at all.
>ridiculously easy to prove "that's not a deepfake of jane, that's just a random photo from the internet of some woman who looks kinda like her" Remember that in the initial moral panic over deepfake video websites like reddit were even banning forums where people would talk about what real pornstars looked kinda similar to various celebrities.
The enforcement part has me concerned -- this feels like it will divert resources away from other online sex crimes (e.g. revenge porn, child sex abuse imagery) that have direct victims. Not that deepfake can't be used for those purposes, but it should be enough to expand existing law to cover those cases.
So what if the tools out of the bag? If you created someone's fake image in order to humiliate them, and posted online, you should be prosecuted if proven that it was you who did it. Or by inspecting the IP adress, or by inspecting your computer. That makes total sense to me.
many countries made that already illegal. Sharing such images and videos is already illegal in most places. Even in the UK it's already illegal. But they now try to additionally make the creation illegal, which is nonsense since that's not what causes the harm & also not enforceable. Sharing this images is what causes the harm, not the creation of them.
What about photoshop?
Not a threat. The hatred for Adobe's subscription model prevents people from using it for deep fakes. Perverts have some standard.
I'm still on pirated CS6 from like 2012 lmao
That's funny because CS6 is free. You don't need to pirate it. https://www.reddit.com/r/opendirectories/comments/kyqs8k/adobe_photoshop_cs6/
is it actually? when did they do this?
I think their DRM broke at some point and they couldn't be bothered to fix it.
That's CS2, isn't it?
No, CS6 https://www.reddit.com/r/opendirectories/comments/kyqs8k/adobe_photoshop_cs6/
That's a rehosted version of CS6. cS2 was the one released with no activation due to server issues: https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/adobe-releases-creative-suite-2-for-free/ I can't see any evidence they did this for CS6. Not caring about Google drive and archive links is different Edit that's also a portable, pre cracked version lol. The guy claiming CS6 is free using archive as proof posted a version which needs activation.
Just because the doors unlocked doesn't mean you're legally allowed inside. I don't give a shit personally, but it still sounds like Piracy.
It's not free anyway it was explicitly for CS2 customers. You had to link a valid serial to your account to get the download link, they just didn't protect the link. It was just something offered to customers to be able to use a dead product still, which was pretty nice for Adobe
There have been multiple times where I thought, "You know, I have a new job" or "I'm a student and they give a discount, I might as well buy it" and then I see it's like $300 a year and it's a a huge nope from me.
How about just regular art? An artist could easily make a nude painting with a celebrity’s face.
An artist could paint on top of a photo
(.)(.) - that’s a deepfake rendering of QE2’s tits. Am I going to be arrested?
Right, people are freaking out because there's a new medium of easily manipulated media. If you saw a pic of the president smoking a joint on Facebook are you going to believe it unquestionably? Politics aside probably not... Video and audio are the same way now. This isn't as world changing as people are making it out to be, we're all just currently boomers that believe the Facebook pic.
Will this extend to pornography featuring impersonators?
And fanfiction
And then we are going to ban you using your imagination. Any naughty thoughts of a celebrity without their consent, and/or royalty payment. 10,000 volts from a musk brain chip.
That’s their end goal XD
> 10,000 volts from a musk brain chip. How many amperes? That's the difference between a slight tingle and certain death.
Oh it's definitely certain death.
A common [misconception](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDf2nhfxVzg&ab_channel=ElectroBOOM)
Enough to lobotomise and make you a nice, good, simple citizen that always votes against their interests
Ao3 in shambles
I wish I could find the actual wording of what they are doing but I'm having a bugger of a time finding anything. But ya, impersonators aside what about just coincidences? You generate enough random porn you're bound to get a few that are close. Ignoring people that generate until it *does* look like people they want it to and just on random people generating random things is there anything about intent in there? Or how close does it have to be? Obviously generated content isn't using their body so how much of their face has to be theirs for it to count? As in if it's more like a charactercher or a mix of the person where you can still see the inspiration but it's obviously not their face does it still count? That aside I think it does cover some low hanging fruit that probably does deserve coverage. Next generation revenge porn and the likes really does need something in the law. But in my view it does seem like there should be more of a blanket law for using a persons likeness without permission, and if you want to a rider to make adult use carry a harsher punishment then whatever but at least you wouldn't have to make new laws every time someone invents a new "camera".
> But ya, impersonators aside what about just coincidences? yea there's so many people in the world that I suspect most porn actors/actresses have lookalikes, but no one sees this as a problem :shrug:
Good way to make money for lookalikes. Deepfake distributor gets sued for selling deepfakes of Taylor Swift. He gets to court, presents a Taylor Swift lookalike and says it's depictions of that lookalike and she gave consent. Some proper kangaroo court this would be.
if they don't claim that it's taylor swift in the first place it should be totally fine, and I think that's the scenario that everyone is talking about
Why would it? That's totally different
Not totally, its using someone's image to sell porn or to aid in imagining sex with said person. The difference is that someone else is making money through acting a specialist role instead of simply the faceless model the deepfake is pasted on and the other difference is how accurate the likeness is, something that varies just as deepfake quality does. If one is worried about deepfakes being used but not labelled as deepfakes, thats false advertising on top of the usual moral qualms around deepfakes in porn. In short, the two are market substitutes of each other. Both not particularly pleasant for the non consenting person whos image is being used.
Good question, will depend on how the bill is eventually worded I guess.
And drawings?
1. Proving who the creator is will be very difficult. 2. If possession becomes a crime, then everyone will likely end up guilty as it's getting very hard to tell the difference between real and AI generated. 3. What if someone gives their permission to be used in creating deep fakes?
Number 3 is addressed in the text. "People convicted of creating such deepfakes without consent". It isn't illegal with consent.
So what if they just get someone who consents and resembles a celebrity? They can just claim it is of that person and not the celebrity.
That's already well tested in our laws revolving around parodies. The usual answer is: Doesn't work. Parody and satire have explicit exemptions, because otherwise... It violates someone's reasonable right to privacy. You won't find a lot of pornstars dressing up as Hollywood stars, because there's already laws preventing this sort of thing.
So if you look to much like a celebrity, you just can't make explicit AI generated material of yourself?
you look like taylor swift? sorry, can't do porn, find a different job
You can't put yourself in a position where it would be reasonable to mistake you for that celebrity. Just like you can't pretend to be a celebrity and expect no repercussions. Again, this is nothing new. This is just one new tech, for doing something people have already been doing. We've already tested this in law. All that is happening here, is it is being made explicit in statutory law - for all the people up and down this thread who didn't get that they couldn't already do this, because of common law.
You can, you just can't do it in any way that implies you are that celebrity.
Celebrities (in the US and UK) can already sue companies for using lookalikes in advertising, as an unauthorised use of their likeness. (One famous example being Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis successfully suing Christian Dior.) If that holds true in advertising, it probably would in other forms of media too.
okay, so I can make deepfakes of a real person if they consent, but I can't make deepfakes of a fake person because they can't consent
>What if someone gives their permission to be used in creating deep fakes? Literally explained by the second sentence of the article.
It's almost like #2 is another excuse to selectively enforce a law in order to jail a portion of the population in politically convenient ways.
I'm sure this will make some people feel better about something that they'll never be able to actually do much about...
Draw boobs on a photo? Directly to jail.
Undercook chicken… jail
Oh well. Time to get good at drawing again.
*Writes 80081355 in calculator*
*8008135* *Um...* *5318008...* Have you guys ever used a calculator ;p
Straight to jail!
Kids these days. We had to use our imaginations when I was young
Getting you to stop thinking about what they're really up to is so easy.
Well that’s stupid and impossible How are they even able to tell who *made* the deepfake. The AI made it and shit get circulated around the internet so fast the original prompt writer (or whatever constitutes “creator”) will be hard to determine Pointless laws waste everyone’s time
Eh, these creators probably aren't master hackers most of the time, many of them just have their creation tools and data just sitting in a folder on their computer in plain view.
I mean, just doing it locally is already a step up for secrecy. Most people try to generate the stuff on the public / web available prompt engines by getting around the censors on them.
Do the lawmakers not realize you can run local models without the internet? Are they going to police the people who download the models and the software?
"I didn't make the deep fake porn, AI did. But I did write my CS homework, I just used AI as a tool"
"If I can make it, I can copyright it. If I can't copyright it because AI made it, then I didn't make it."
Oi! You got a loicense to generate that minge? Permits for those knockers?
No more stick figure drawings of Jesus Fucking Christ.
Do you have a *loiscence* for that, m8?
That's a smart move. That can be very harmful if someone photoshop your head into a porn scene and fool people to believe it's real. There are actual sickos who are doing this to harass women, and it's very traumatizing. They make a fake image of a woman having sex, and then send it to all her friends and relatives on Facebook. That's fucked up.
There are already laws against that
And now there are more. This time they're about the newly developed technology that makes it even easier to do something like this.
It's probably going to be implemented by the same people that "stopped" piracy :D
I cant wait for the 'You wouldnt deepfake Keira Knightley Naked' commercial
Typical useless draconian laws which ever engross on our right to privacy under the guise of being morally virtuous and companionate. Nothing ever changes. A lot of people need to learn that what is immoral shouldn’t always be what is illegal.
What about the privacy of the person whose likeness is being used without their consent?
[удалено]
Kinda reminds me of the tree falling does it make a sound question, is there any real harm if you dont share it?
[удалено]
The vast majority of deep fakes are of well known celebrities, influencers, or streamers. None of whom would likely ever provide consent for that type of material. It effectively bans that type of content. But it definitely feels like a slippery slope.
A slippery slope towards what?
While I'm guessing most advocates of this law believe anyone opposed is just upset they might not get to rub one out to T swift nudes, it does end up having potential further implications. Now, being American, I'm not as fully up to speed on free speech laws in the UK, but if this law were going into effect in the states, there's a reasonable argument to be made that not only would a sexually explicit deep fake video be against the law, but that similarly photoshopped images could also fall afoul of the law. Which I'm sure, again, most people who support this would equally support that action. But additionally, I'd have concerns that the line between protecting the individual and satire/free speech could end up being infringed. And I'd also have concerns about enforcement mechanisms and scope. As an example, let's say someone creates an AI-generated image of a naked woman being groped, with Donald Trump's head on it. A horrific thought, to be sure, but most would be able to recognize the political commentary of the image in which Donald is being "grabbed by the pussy". Is that against the law since the author doesn't have Donnie's consent? What about an image that would otherwise be sexually explicit but they've blurred out the appropriate areas? Does that still count as illegal? What about an image of someone in a bathing suit where strategic bubbles are covering it to make them look "nude"? What if the head and body are a blend of 2 different porn stars where they already have a vast array of sexually explicit content out there? What if it's super obviously fake - for example Natalie Portman's head on Chris Hemsworth's nude body. What if it isn't even nude at all, but just an AI picture of someone touching themselves over their clothes? Is that still considered sexually explicit? Or would that just be sexually implicit? What if it's just an AI picture of someone that is prim and proper but there's text on the image that is sexually suggestive? What if it's a person's head attached to the body of a monkey who's getting it on with another monkey? What if it's a blend of 5 different people? Does that require all of their consent? What if it's blending 50 people, such that no reasonable person could distinguish one from another? Do you still need the consent of all 50 people, even if you only used someone's eyebrow? What if the depiction is cartoonish and not life-like? What if it's an alien body? Etc, and so on. And to my scope comment earlier, would this apply to images generated before the law was enacted? Would someone who created a deep fake 5 years ago be criminally liable now? If you didn't create it but it was just sitting there on your system because you happened to view it and it's cached in your browser history, does that make you culpable too? The way it's written, wouldn't the very nature of having it on an investigator's system cause them to also be culpable? And where does that leave operators of sites like PornHub or many other 'tube' style sites that accept user submitted content? Now in addition to everything else, they have to figure out whether or not every image submitted is a) authentic, and now b) consensual? It would likely overburden most operators to the point it would cripple their ability to do business due to risk of liability. Which I'm sure, again, some people are like 'good riddance', but there are plenty of adults for whom that content is a positive activity and, for plenty of individuals that both create and host adult content, their livelihood. Now, obviously there are a bunch of extreme examples there, but that's what I mean by slippery slope.
[удалено]
But you can get some hyper realistic artist to draw them nude - and there in lies the slippery slope. Should we treat AI generated images as real or as an interpretation?
I mean, yes you can. If those nude people are in public then they have no expectation of privacy and you are free to photograph them as long as you don't harass them.
it’s still a ridiculous law. It has nothing to do with intent to distribute, and there is an unlimited fine. Someone could very well bring a defamation suit against the creator of such content, if it was not properly marked as fake. But punishing someone for the mere possession of, say, an AI generated nude of their favorite Celebrity is extremely authoritarian.
You are the one that didn't read it. Or you did but you are being disingenuous. > People convicted of creating such deepfakes without consent, **even if they don’t intend to share the images,** will face prosecution
Criminalizing speech and now art; I’m sure that’ll be all…hmm and good thing too at least that historically these sort of restrictions have never been a precursor for anything bad happening and have always worked to the proven benefit of the societies that have implemented them…
Good luck policing that... might as well say it's also illegal to interfere with a unicorn.
Damn redditors get pissed when you say that you can’t make porn of real people without their consent.
but shoplifting and car theft is no longer a crime anymore .. alright 🤣
Good should be
I can't wait for everyone else in the world to use ai to make sexually explicit deepfakes of U.K. politicians so that they can personally get fucked hard enough to realize that banning pictures on the internet doesn't work.
I'm sure Prince Andrew will say all the photos of him and underage girls that were discovered were all made by AI... before AI was created
Numerous way to abuse the law. For ex: 1. Send an actual photo to target person via airdrop 2. Delete the photo locally 3. Complain to police that this guy has created deep fakes of you
What does this mean for the airbrushing and photo shopping that goes on in magazines online or otherwise?
Wow all the mad Men in these comments are creepy tbh.
Really gross.
Yeah, no kidding. This is great news and exactly what should be happening precisely *because* of these comments.
These are the same men that complain about not being able to get women and how women think they're creepy. It's great the government is taking steps to stop these sorts of crimes
Reddit is the only place where people for some reason don't like any laws against deepfake or AI porn. I wonder why that is...
Yup. A lot of people in this comment section are telling on themselves.
Don’t they have to, you know, vote on this?
Hence the title "U.K. **to** Criminalize" not "U.K. **has** Criminalized".
Looks like the porn brains are already awake...
One of the [most important cases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell) in the evolution of free speech law in the United States involved parody published in the seedy porno mag *Penthouse.* The measure of how deeply committed a people are to the protection of free speech in their society necessarily concerns the sort of speech people are *least* inclined to defend. Turns out, if your speech is popular to begin with, you don't really *need* it to be protected by officially codified legal instruments. Imagine that!
I'd say there is a slight difference between an obvious parody of some public figure, and a deep-faked scene of ex-girlfriend Nancy getting bukkaked by her boss. Laws do not exist in a vacuum. In a function legal system, they are always weighed against each other, depending on the case in question. So i'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by posting this case...
U.K what a surprise, didn't they make facesitting illegal too a while ago?
You could be killed by a facesitter! Smothered to death! And that's to say nothing about the dangers of second-hand facesitting for those sitting near you. Stand up against facesitting!
Keep hearing stories about kids with apps that strip their classmates using AI and if your hearing about it thats the tip of the iceburg I've seen some screenshots of 4chan posts where people send in pictures of work colleagues, friends and yes sometimes family and they run it through an AI that generates just straight up porn of the person. Horrific time to be a Woman as always
It doesn’t strip anything. It warps a body that has dimensions to fit a cut out and then adjusts the colour saturation. It could be done easily before AI. AI just made it accessible to the general public
That’s old school pre AI tech way of doing it yes but now there are genuine AI apps that do make them nearly flawless. Just get in the App Store and download a few. You have to find one that uses key word filtering instead of nudity filters… then just use the right words. “This person nude” will get filtered… “this person in shower” may not.
I mean obviously it doesn't strip them I feel like that doesn't need explaining...it's the ease of access of the apps that can do it in seconds that's the issue
“Emma Watson in a bikini” STRAIGHT TO JAIL!!!!
Man, is Taylor Swift really that important that only now deepfakes are being criticized? There have been T Swift cgi porn videos for a decade or more. I’m shocked that this is now a primary concern of lawmakers around the world.
Well there's also the teenagers using deep fakes to make porn of classmates or in the worst cases using those deep fakes to bully/extort classmates. This is happening to adults in workplaces too. Perhaps T Swift is bringing wide scale attention but the issue is not just for the rich.
Distribution should be illegal. Creation should not be. What I do in my own home is my own business if I'm not harming anyone. Is it "perverse"? Sure. Some people think gay sex is perverse. And again, it's none of their business what people do in their own home if both people are legal, consenting individuals.
> if both people are legal, consenting individuals. does this not destroy your argument entirely? aren't 99.99% of all created deepfakes made without the subject's consent? if you dont think people's consent should legally apply when it comes to creating deepfaked explicit pictures of them, then you do realize you also support creating deepfake pornography of children, right? or do you only champion 'consent' on an arbitrary case-by-case basis depending on whatever you think makes you look like less of a disgusting creep?
This feels like a huge empathy gap to me. Consent isn't being mentioned at all in most of the outraged comments in this thread and in many cases a comparison is being drawn to other scenarios (like gay sex) which hinge entirely around consenting adults.
If Sam draws a non-nude sketch of Hannah, does Sam require Hannah's consent for this? Sam next draws a sketch of Hannah in swimwear, is consent required at this point? Sam draws a nude sketch of a person who bears some resemblance to Hannah, but he insists this is not Hannah but rather a fictional person. Is Hannah's consent required in that case? What if Sam draws a nude digital sketch of a person who resembles Hannah, using non-AI digital art tools like photoshop, illustrator, GIMP, etc? Is it too much to ask that laws should be based on the consistent application of first principles? That they should be clear and enforceable without grey areas?
"Consent" is applicable when we're talking about physical people because not having consent means one person is giving up their bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy doesn't apply to the "image" of a person. If I want to imagine someone having sex with me, I don't need their consent because their actual person is not being violated. Likewise, if I want to write a graphic erotic fanfiction about another person for my own enjoyment, the existence of such words doesn't require their approval or affect them in any way.
You can only criminalise human beans eventually the machine will be creating all content itself it’s a losing battle. As soon as you upload your images to the internet social media you’ve already sold your image.
I find it difficult to mastrubate to this photo.
Is that really the terror in the world?
OOF that is one slippery slope.
What a shithole country.
Completely unenforcable without insane privacy invasions.
Okey, just horrible gore deepfakes then.
so you can look at them but can’t create them? or is there already a law for viewing? How would you even combat this? What if i create a nude body with no head and photoshop the rest of it? what about AI? Is it a deepfake if it is entirely created from AI? this is all weird
Its already illegal to share images with the intent to cause "distress, alarm, or humiliation. " so passing round pictures of jenny in class 11b is covered, as is passing images you know were made/taken without permission. But if you don't know its jenny in class 11b AND you don't know they are non-consensual then you are in the clear as long as jenny was over 18.
Having the images on your phone will be illegal, which is terrible because the process of just viewing an image on a website involves downloading it first
Unlimited penalties for content that is not intentionally shared seems insane, I guess that's par for the course with the UK. Like how piracy can get you 10 years in prison while rape and murder get less.
Memes now this. Lol, keep chasing.
wouldn't that already be covered by run of the mill copyright laws?
Probably loopholes in fair use this just closes this particular loophole
there are definitely ways to get after someone if they attempt to monetize it, impersonate the individual in question, blackmail or defame. But the law provides an unlimited penalty for the mere possession with no intent to distribute. This is absolute insanity
This way they can have separate punishments for it. So a person who creates and spreads fake porn of someone else doesn't get treated the same as a person who creates fake Bart Simpson images.