cross-posted from: https://mbin.grits.dev/m/mews/t/22301
White House calls for legislation to stop Taylor Swift AI fakes
Nobody cares until someone rich is impacted. Revenge porn has been circulating on platforms uninhibited for many years, but the second it happens to a major celebrity suddenly there’s a rush to do something about it.
What?
This isn’t revenge porn, it’s fakes of celebrities.
Something that was done for decades, and one of the biggest parts of early reddit. So it’s not “the second” either.
The only thing that’s changed is people are generating it with AI.
The ones made without AI (that have been made for decades) are a lot more realistic and a lot more explicit. It just takes skill and time, which is why people were only doing it for celebrities.
The danger of AI is any random person could take some pictures off social media and make explicit images. The technology isn’t there yet, but it won’t take much longer
I think it’s more about the abject danger that unregulated AI replication of noteworthy figures represents to basically everything
Also, revenge porn is illegal in I think every state but South Carolina and even then it might have been banned since I saw that stat
While I agree with the sentiment that rich people’s issues have more influence.
How Many States Have Revenge Porn Laws?
All states, excluding Massachusetts and South Carolina, have separate statutes specifically related to revenge porn. It’s important to note, however, that a person may still be prosecuted for revenge porn under other statutes in those two states.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/revenge-porn-laws-by-state.html
You think it wasn’t celebrities first? The issue here is specifically Taylor Swift.
deleted by creator
What a braindead take. Both the US and many other intl countries have enacted AI safety and regulation rules, this is an extension of that effort. The idea is to set a precedent for this kind of behavior. They are also looking into how AI is being used for election interference like having AI Biden tell people not to vote.
Everybody cares, just because it’s not all in place day 0 doesn’t mean nobody does
This wasn’t a problem until the rich white girl got it. Now we must do… something. Let’s try panic!
-The Whitehouse, probably.
Honestly, I kind of don’t even care. If that’s what it takes to get people to realize that it’s a serious problem, cool. I mean, it’s aggravating, but at least now something might actually happen that helps protect people who aren’t megastars.
You must be new to capitalism, lol
Blah blah blah so tiring to hear this thoughtless perspective constantly pushed in the fediverse.
I’m just saying, nothing about this should lead anyone to the conclusion that anyone in power is suddenly going to start caring about poor people. They’re literally only talking about this because a billionaire got its feelings hurt.
Fair enough, and at the end of the day I probably hate billionaires as much as you do.
If you don’t like discourse that is different from your beliefs then plug your ears and shout lalala as you have been doing so for decades.
Someone complaining about the same thoughtless perspective is not complaining about discourse.
Just once I’d love to have actual discourse about capitalism. I’ve never met a person who expressed hatred of capitalism who seemed capable of of discourse unfortunately.
You have to actually listen and allow yourself to think twice about capitalism.
The only thing that could possibly happen to protect people from this is to make AI illegal. That would be (a) impossible to enforce without draconian decrease in individual freedom, like keeping people stuffed in crates of packing foam instead of free to move around, and (b) absolutely horrible if it were successfully enforced.
AI is cheaper and easier to proliferate than any drug. We have not succeeded in controlling drugs, despite their physical requirements of mass and volume making them visible in reality, a feature AI does not share.
The attempt to control AI can and will destroy all our freedoms if we let it. Again, the only way to control something so ephemeral as computation is to massively restrict all freedom.
White House used Panic!
It hurt itself in its confusion!
It absolutely was a problem before and it’s not because Taylor is white. Revenge porn laws aren’t new and AI legislation has been in the works before this popped off.
You also gonna say nobody cared about election interference until an AI recording of Biden told people not to vote?
Just because you weren’t aware doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening
Do you want more AI gens of nude Taylor Swift? Because that’s how you get more AI gens of nude Taylor Swift.
Only AI fakes of billionaires. They’re just admitting that there’s a two tiered legal system, and if you’re below a certain “value,” you will not be protected.I fat fingered and replied to the wrong comment.
fat fingered
Just like in the AI nudes.
They’re not so much “fat fingered” as they are “all the fingers”
This will be interesting.
How to write legislation to stop AI nudes but not photo shopping or art? I am not at all sure it can be done. And even if it can, will it withstand a courtroom free speech test?
I think it’s not feasible to stop or control it, for several reasons -
- People are motivated to consume ai porn
- There is no barrier to creating it
- There is no cost to create it
- There are multiple generations of people who have shared the source material needed to create it.
We joke about rule 34 right, if you can think of it there is porn of it. It’s now pretty straightforward to fulfil the second part of that, irrespective as to the thing you thought of. Those pics of your granddsd in his 20s in a navy uniform? Your high school yearbook picture? Six shots of your younger sister shared by an aunt on Facebook? Those are just as consumable by ai as tay tay is.
You write legislation that bans all three because there is no difference between generating, photoshopping or drawing lewds of someone without their consent.
Banning this on an individual level would be impossible, so you let the platforms that host it get sued.
We have the technology to detect if an image is NSFW and if it includes a celebrity. Twitter is letting this happen on purpose.
The images spread across X in particular on Wednesday night, with one hitting 45 million views before being taken down. The platform was slow to respond, with the post staying up for around 17 hours.
It’s hard to pretend it wasn’t reported by Taylors fans many time during this time and the moderators didn’t know about this image half an hour after it was posted.
If the image is even slightly convincing, it’s essentially just defamation with digital impersonation thrown in. Yeah, that might catch photoshop in its net, but you’d need to be a DAMN good artist to get caught in it as well.
So what level is slightly convincing?
What about people that happen to look like someone famous?
What level of accuracy is necessary?
If I label some random blonde ai generated porn “Taylor Slow”, does that count?
They are both blonde after all.
Surely this should be a priority.
Well, it’s not really just about Swift. There are probably many other people that are going through this. Not every person who generates nudes of someone else is going to make it to the news, after all.
I could see this being a problem in highschools as really mean pranks. That is not good. There are a million other ways I could see fake nudes being used against someone.
If someone spread pictures of me naked: 1. I would be flattered and 2. Really ask why someone wants to see me naked in the first place.
If anything, just an extension of any slander(?) laws would work. It’s going to be extremely hard to enforce any law though, so there is that.
However, how long have revenge porn laws been a thing? Were they ever really a thing?
i remember a headline from a few weeks back, this is already happening in schools. its really not about swift
Ya, it fucking should be
Wait… They want to stop only Taylor Swift AI fakes? Not every AI fake representing a real person???
Only AI fakes of billionaires. They’re just admitting that there’s a two tiered legal system, and if you’re below a certain “value,” you will not be protected.
If the value level is Taylor Swift we’re all doomed
That’s not true, every American has the opportunities they need to become Taylor Swift. They just need to work harder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah… They just need to stop being that poor
Y’all need to read the article and stop rage baiting. It’s literally a click away.
“Legislation needs to be passed to protect people from fake sexual images generated by AI, the White House said this afternoon.”
Quick! Stock up on Katy Perry fakes before those get banned aswell
This is what the white house is concerned about… Fuck them. Like there is so much worse going on in America but oh no one person has ai fake porn images heaven forbid!
The White House is capable of having a position on more than one issue at a time. There also doesn’t seem to be a particular bill they are touting, so this seems to be more of a “This is messed up. Congress should do something about it” situation than “We’re dropping everything to deal with this” one.
The White House is capable of having a position on more than one issue at a time.
Doubt.
Nice job reading the article, any one of these articles, to actually get context and not just react to headlines.
People are asking about Swift. The government isn’t buddying up to her specifically. Swift is only the most famous face of this issue with very focused growth on this.
I’d much rather that we do nothing, let it proliferate to the point where nobody trusts nudes at all any more.
I really hope your gf makes you watch ai porn of her with your best friend.
You really need healthier relationships in your life I think; my wife would have no reason to do such a thing.
but then it’s legal to create pornography of anybody, who consents or not. which well, isn’t exactly good. so it honestly should be made law.
That’s perfect. It should be legal. Making pornography of someone illegal is just a different scale of grey from say…making drawing muhammad illegal, etc.
I can already hire an artist to make me some porn of …I dunno…Obama or something. Why should that be illegal just because someone does it with AI instead?
but then they wouldn’t have consented to the creation of porn of themselves. which if it is a deepfake, it is literally non consensual porn.
Hate to break it to you, this is already legal. “Non Consensual Porn” only applies to photographs. Nobody should have to consent to everything like that.
If I draw you standing under the eiffel tower, fully clothed - the legality shouldn’t change just because you don’t LIKE what’s being drawn.
I’m aware it’s already legal, hence why action should be taken. plus videos are just a bunch of photos stitched together so I don’t see your point of it only applying to photos.
Because it being nude/etc is the only thing that is different from people just simply drawing others in art.
Just because you don’t like pornography, shouldn’t change the legality of it. It’s prudism and puritanism at its finest.
it’s not porn in general that should be illegal. ONLY pornography where the person has not explicitly said they would like to be in it. such as deepfake porn, or drawn where the person has also not said they would like to be in it.
Nobody should have to consent to everything like that
I’m sorry but holy fuck that is just morally bankrupt.
Someone should have the ABSOLUTE right to control any distribution of their image when of a sexual nature that they didn’t actively consent to being out there
Anything less is the facilitation of the culture of sexual abuse that lets the fappening or age of consent countdown clocks happen
Drawing a picture of someone under the eifel tower is a wildly different act than drawing them in the nude without them knowing and agreeing with full knowledge of what you plan to do with that nude piece.
Calling this sexual abuse is absolutely insulting and disgusting
Trying to pretend it’s not is feeding the culture of not listening to victims.
It’s like saying that cat calling is harmless, forcing people to be reminded they are seen as a sex object is well known and documented as a tool of keeping the victim “in their place.”
It’s harassment, and when done at the scale famous folks experience for the crime of being well known and also attractive, basically amounts to a campaign of terror via sexual objectification.
Nevermind how tolerating it makes space for even more focused acts of terror like doxxing and making threats of sexual assault.
I’m wondering if the degree of believability of the image has, or should have any bearing on the answer here. Like, if a third party who was unaware of the image’s provenance came across it, might they be likely to believe the image is authentic or authorized?
For another angle, we allow protections on the usage of fictional characters/their images. Is it so wild to think that a real person might be worthy of the same protections?
Ultimately, people are going to be privately freaky how they’re gonna be privately freaky. It mostly only ever becomes a problem when it stops being private. I shouldn’t have to see that a bunch of strangers made porn to look like me, and neither should Taylor. And mine are unlikely to make it into tabloids.
From https://www.owe.com/resources/legalities/7-issues-regarding-use-someones-likeness/
A. The short answer is no. Individuals do not have an absolute ownership right in their names or likenesses. But the law does give individuals certain rights of “privacy” and “publicity” which provide limited rights to control how your name, likeness, or other identifying information is used under certain circumstances.
From that page, it actually looks like there is a very specific criteria for this - and Taylor Swift HERSELF is protected because she is a celebrity.
However, there are still a lot of gotchas. So instead of making the product/art itself illegal, using it as harassment should be what’s illegal. Attaching someone’s name to it in an attempt to defame them is what’s already illegal here.
Having an image exist somewhere of them isn’t the sort of thing a person should have to consent to.
Consent is for things that affect that person.
Removed by mod
…is there a Lemmy version of r/TIHI?
The third from the last… scary how realistic these deepfakes have become
U.S. government be like:
Thousands of deep fakes of poor people: I sleep.
Some deep fakes of some privileged Hollywood elite: R E A L S H I T.
But actually not
AI legislation has been in the works both in the US and intl long before this Taylor shit, this is just an extension of those efforts.
It’s not about rich white people, it’s about serious potential to harm.
Potential harm like election interference: https://www.wired.com/story/biden-robocall-deepfake-danger/
Taylor is just trying to distract us from her jet emissions again, just like her new PR relationship with that Kelce guy was almost certainly to distract us from her dating that Matty Healy dude that openly said he enjoys porn that brutalizes black women (and also from her jet emissions).
She’s not stupid. She’s a billionaire very aware of how news cycles work.
Oh look, we’ve got this generations moral panic figured.
Is the law going to explicitly protect her and no one else?
Click on the link, read the article, answer your own question
NEVAR!
It’s called setting a precedent bud.
Notice how there wasn’t any of this kind of effort to stop AI when pedos were making CP with it? Or when indie artists were being plagiarized by it?
The amount of people in this thread that doesn’t see this as a problem is disturbing.
I think the main issue many people are taking is that these fakes have been around for a bit, but NOW there’s a call to legislation when it’s a billionaire that’s the victim.
Of course it’s a problem and I’ve said before that this needs to be discussed on a legislative level, but even I’m rolling my eyes that it took a literal billionaire being exposed to it to have any impact.
I am pretty sure if fakes where around before swifts where there too.
Then you’re wrong. Taylor Swift’s career predates this technology.
The proposed law, or AI?
That people are making these contents
Thing is, people have been making these content for decades, and are unlikely to stop anytime soon, regardless of what legislation says. It would be far more beneficial if we could change society’s attitude towards these issues instead
But we can’t so we change what we can .
We’ve successfully changed our attitudes to things time and time again. Take LGBT as the obvious related example
But homophobes still exists so if some people like that exist one of them can make 100 of those pictures in 1 minute
The point is that if we as a society start normalising sexuality and stop shaming people, there would be no incentive for these pictures to exist. Like with pot and alcohol, prohibition does not solve the issue, but arguably make it worse
And the amount of people who don’t see massive new legislation as a problem is also disturbing.
I think it was Deloitte that is expecting that AI scams (such as fake emergency call scams) will cost the economy trillions of dollars. Taylor swift fake nudes is just the tip of an iceberg of problems created by new tech. Its just a matter of time before the public internet is completely unusable.
It’s happening already. I think AI is a massive, massive problem. I knew it would be a massive problem twenty years ago thinking about it as a stoner talking the future of AI.
I just don’t think legislation is going to help.
I was actually downvoted to oblivion because I called out some kids for suggesting she’s not as much of a victim as others because she’s wealthy.
Fucking gross. Who’s raising these kids?
