A mother and her 14-year-old daughter are advocating for better protections for victims after AI-generated nude images of the teen and other female classmates were circulated at a high school in New Jersey.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, officials are investigating an incident involving a teenage boy who allegedly used artificial intelligence to create and distribute similar images of other students – also teen girls - that attend a high school in suburban Seattle, Washington.
The disturbing cases have put a spotlight yet again on explicit AI-generated material that overwhelmingly harms women and children and is booming online at an unprecedented rate. According to an analysis by independent researcher Genevieve Oh that was shared with The Associated Press, more than 143,000 new deepfake videos were posted online this year, which surpasses every other year combined.
Of course they exist. If the AI generated image “depicts” a person, a victim in this case, that person “by definition” exists.
Your argument evaporates when you consider that all digital images are interpreted and encoded by complex mathematical algorithms. All digital images are “fake” by that definition and therefore the people depicted do not exist. Try explaining that to your 9 year old daughter.
Go to this website and tell me who is depicted in the photo, please?
Are you daft? I assume that the person depicted in the photo at thispersondoesnotexist.com does not exist.
That image was generated by AI.
So do people in images that are purely AI generated exist, or not?
This is so tedious. If you have a point, then make it. Stop asking inane questions.
This question is based on a false premise, as though the technology used to create an image is relevant to what it depicts.
Of course in all cases, for all intents and purposes the depicted person exists. You can argue that a painting is just an arrangement of pigments on canvas and you would be correct, but to everyone else its still a picture of a specific person.
If you use a computer to generate an image that “looks like” a school-mate doing whatever thing, then an argument that the person in the picture does not exist because the image was generated by AI is moot, because for all intent’s and purposes it’s a “picture of” that school mate doing that thing.
Suppose that instead of generating photos of faces, thispersondoesnotexist.com generated porn. Who would be harmed then?
For the love of everything holy. This is not how grown ups discuss things. Make your point and stop asking dumb questions.
As you well know, no one is directly harmed by the simple act of someone viewing AI generated porn which does not depict a real person.
That said, the law in my jurisdiction does not discern between real or not. If it’s an image (even hentai) depicting sexual abuse against a minor then it’s CSAM. How do you know if the depicted person is a minor? That’s a question for a jury. I’m sure there are arguments against this position, but it’s merits are obvious. You don’t need to quibble over whether an image depicts a real person or not, if it’s CSAM then it’s illegal.
Then why did you say that there was no difference realism-wise between an image generated by AI and an image generated by a camera?
Because it’s true.
You fucking dunce. You did not read the article. People have been taking real pictures of real children, and using AI to remove their clothes. The real person is still in the image