Did you read 85 Moronda?

Just caught this from the article:

Mary Anne Franks, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law and a lawyer who has studied the problem of nonconsensual explicit imagery, says it's "odd" that Florida's revenge porn law, which predates the 2022 statute under which the boys were charged, only makes the offense a misdemeanor, while this situation represented a felony.

"It is really strange to me that you impose heftier penalties for fake nude photos than for real ones," she says.

LOL

To rephrase that poorly written sentence.

The kids are being charged with a felony for sharing "any altered sexual depiction" of a person without their consent.

So, if they created nudes of their 12-year-old classmates, how is that NOT child pornography?

If it ISN'T child pornography, how can it be justified that they altered sexual depiction of a person?

Hey, I am not defending the bullying, the kids should receive consequences for this. Though I can certainly understand how and why a 14-year-old with this technology at his fingertips would do such a thing.

I am saying, theoretically (and the basis for law), are the images generated actually likenesses of the kids?

If the kids, as the felony they face, created kiddie porn-nude images of real people (which is the basis of the Fl law), then why are they not being charged with producing and distributing child pornography>

"If I cut out a picture of my neighbor's face and paste it to a playboy model's body have I not done the same thing?"
Depends. Are you doing it in private, or is this for public consumption?
In private, you've got all kinds of freedoms. Public is different, though, because you're clearly doing it for gain.

#26 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

The kids in this story weren't doing it for gain, they were doing it because they could. They just so happened to share them with each other.

But that begs the question, if a pervert uses kids pictures to create nude images/videos using AI, is that child porn? is it different if he keeps them himself and doesn't share them? There is no "gain" there, its for personal consumption, the videos/picture's likeness is limited to the face, not the bodies. The bodies are AI generated.

IDK the answer, I am just hesitant about criminalizing thought.

@23 sure, but bullying is a separate issue from the AI in my mind. the kids harassing the 12-year-old can and should be handled as a cyber bullying thing completely separate from AI.

My thought is that this technology, which will only improve, will likely become so ubiquitous that anyone could AI a porn of anyone the wanted to by clicking a few buttons on their cellphone.

As an aside, did you know that many women are becoming very conscious of showing their feet in public, like at the beach or in sandals or in insta posts and the like?

People are scouring the internet for feet pictures and posting them on foot fetish websites.

My daughter was in Cabo for spring break last year and fell into a cactus plant and was very hesitant about sending her mom and me pictures of her feet/lower legs with their scratches because she didn't want feet pictures out there.

The human animal is nothing if not perverted.

The basis I see is how and purpose the images are used.
Not the source.
#20 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

So, you're policing the thoughts of the kids?

If I cut out a picture of my neighbor's face and paste it to a playboy model's body have I not done the same thing?

The portions of the subjects body that are nude like their breasts and vagina are presumably extrapolated, so NOT the same/

"AI can be used to market or sell products with that person's image"
That's been held to cross the line in every court case to date. You can't AI Tom Hanks and have him endorse your spaghetti sauce.

#18 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Fair enough, but we're not all Tom Hanks, all that is needed now is a picture or 2 of someone and whole ad campaigns can be designed off that person, add a freckle or 2 and voila no copyright infringement.

I admit my thoughts are less that precise on this topic, I am in the process of learning about it and have only vague unformed concerns about it. But charging children with a felony for something like this is troubling to say the least.

Is an AI video of someone an actual likeness of that person or is it like a version of a thought crime? IDK the answer to that

@#13 ... But at what point is it criminal? ...
My first thought...
When it is used without the permission of those targeted by it.
#16 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER A

Why? What is the basis for that?

Remember, that the source of the images that are the basis of the AI generated material could be public domain-say a picture taken in public.

2) On a larger level, celebrities and such, yeah, Congress needs to act. But I also add, good luck with that.

#12 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

How does one legislate and issue like AI where even the AI developers haven't a clue as to it's capabilities?

BTW, I heard on podcast that the current AI commercially available like ChatGPT is infinitely less advanced than the next generation stuff that is already developed and not released yet. AI that can actually write jokes or poetry to fool humans type stuff. Scary scary stuff

"I used to draw nudes when I was in Junior High..."

That's the point though, in the not-too-distant future you will be able to create movie quality porn of anyone. But at what point is it criminal? Where is the line of an actual crime? Is an AI generated image similar to thought crime like the To Catch a Predator stings? If you add a mole or tattoo or a few freckles to a person's face and it is otherwise photo realistic, is that the same as a photograph?

So, you have to ask, do people have a right to their own image. Or consider it another way, does one have a right to privacy or bodily autonomy?

If I am in public people can take a picture of me, and with AI they can use me for advertising, for their sexual pleasure, for homework, for a movie script or a news article all without my consent.

Any pictures of me on the internet can achieve the same goal. -----, I would imagine that AI can reproduce say TruthHurts right here on the DR. Or say you have someone who has a large online social media presence. AI can essentially clone that person. They can use AI to commit identity theft (already a crime), BUT AI can be used to market or sell products with that person's image or essence as created by AI.

Where does your privacy come in? Oh wait we no longer have an inherent right to that.

Is it plagiarism for AI to use my thoughts and writings for advertising or for a thesis or for a movie script?

A woman is not entitled to do with her body should she become pregnant. What gives that woman the right to damages if someone uses her image to create porn?

The thing is though....

Once the genie is out of the bottle how does one get it back in? I posit it is impossible.

If you can handle porn do a google search of a random celebrity and add AI porn and see how many countless images and videos already exist.

And that is after a couple 3 generations of photoshop

No, policing this is an impossibility at this point, full stop.

Maybe some civil action will catch someone at the edges of the issue.

I have no idea how any government could stop this.

BTW charging 13 and 14 year olds for something like this IS lawfare.

Giving them technology like this is like handing them a loaded gun, walking away and not expecting them to shoot it.

When I think of Rhonda Santis this always comes to mind

I think he's getting marching orders from Obama, who despises Israel more than Hamas despises Israel.

#11 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Jeff wonders why no one takes him seriously.

I think he's getting marching orders from Obama, who despises Israel more than Hamas despises Israel.

#11 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Jeff wonders why no one takes him seriously.

Eventually the situation will become how can one tell the difference between the real nudes and AI nudes?

a state law passed in 2022 which makes it a felony to share "any altered sexual depiction" of a person without their consent.
^
I can't imagine how this law survives the First Amendment.

#2 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

is what the kids made child porn? Is it to be considered differently if shared via the internet?

This is actually a fascinating case study of where things are and where they will go with AI.

Is a person entitled to their own image? Will AI-derived nudes of children be considered child porn? How is it different from a talented artist drawing a nude of someone? When does art become illegal? What are the ramifications of someone using public software to create a pornographic image of someone against their will? Is it still ok if the image is not shared? If the image is less overtly sexual?

It's a Brave New World people.

SS is more like an insurance plan.

In fact, the part of SS that retires receive is called the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program.

It is NOT an investment plan.

It is federally funded insurance that you will receive a monthly benefit upon reaching a certain age.

It is NOT an investment mechanism.

SS survived the Great Depression quite well, would have thought it would have taught you a thing or two about wall street bubbles.
#84 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-03-10 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag
If you understand how to invest as you age, you will secure more of your wealth as you get older and not leave it risky ------. even if I was a ------y investor and only made 2% over time, I would still have a helluva lot more money than I'll ever get from Socialist's Insecurity.

#95 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

SS is not an investment mechanism.

SS is not an investment mechanism.

How many times do you have to be told SS is not an investment mechanism.

Because, SS is not an investment mechanism.

One more time for the cheap seats

SS is not an investment mechanism.

It is a program that assures a basic income for older Americans. An income that is separate from:

1. the whims of wall street
2. the peaks and valleys of wall street
3. the conmen of wall street
4. the inability of many, many, many, many, many people to invest-it takes a certain privilege to think that most people can even afford even 5% of their income being set aside for retirement.
5. a total crash of the economy by bankers and wall street people.

And since SS is not an investment mechanism, the comparison to investing is, well, sorry to say, just plain stupid.

Oh, did I say SS is not an investment mechanism?

I think Joe was calling you a weasel.

Really? Abortion? EPA? Affirmative Action? It was time, and the conservatives got it right again. Keep laughing, you lunatic.

#80 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

EPA? You mean where the SC ignored that fact that water flows downhill and allowed people to fill in wetlands, assuming that won't impact other people's properties? Oh yeah childish selfishness is a central tenant of conservatism-who cares who pays, I want what I want when I want it and I don't want to pay for it.

Affirmative Action? Are you saying systematic racism is solved? or that it never existed? Either way you and the SC should have to prove that.

Really? Abortion? EPA? Affirmative Action? It was time, and the conservatives got it right again. Keep laughing, you lunatic.

#80 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Dobbs was decided on the musings of a 13th Century british politician who believed in witches.

Yep, women share the same rights as men.

Do you understand the concept of cherry picking?

Do you not WANT bodily autonomy?

Can't wait for a state's concerted effort at forced organ donation.

correction Great Recession

Why? ROI.Much better ROI on my own investments.

#78 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS A

SS is not an investment scheme.

SS survived the Great Depression quite well, would have thought it would have taught you a thing or two about wall street bubbles.