Thanks ahead of time for your feedback
I sorta feel this way. Before that people would make cutout mashups or artistic types might depict something. I do get that its getting so real folks may things the people actually did the thing.
It’s a bit of a blend of it has always been a big deal, and that it is indeed more of a big deal still now because of how easy, accessible, and believable the AI can be. Like even nowadays, Photoshop hits only one point of that triangle. But it was even less capable back in the day. It could hit half of one of those points at any given time.
Basically, a nude generated by a good AI has to be proven false. Because it doesn’t always immediately seem as such at first. If you have seen obvious AI fakes, they are just that, obvious. There are many non-obvious ones that you might have seen and not known they were fake. That is, of course, assuming you have looked.
The other reason it can be more of a big deal now is that kids have been doing it of other kids. And since the results can be believable, the parents didn’t know they were fake to start with. So it would blow up as if it was real before finding out it was AI. And anything involving that is gonna be a big deal.
Right now though, it’s rare to find the right number of fingers and/or toes
I mean, that was an issue in the first month or so. Though I could see if the automated tools people use for this specific purpose might not stay up to date. I haven’t specifically interacted with those. But proper AI tools have in-filling to correct mistakes like that, you can keep the rest of the image and just “reroll” a section of it until whatever you didn’t like about it is fixed. Super quick and easy.
Because now teenagers can do it with very little effort whereas before it at least required a lot of time and skill
i think its ‘barrier to entry’
photoshop took skills that not everyone has/had keeping the volume low.
these new generators require zero skill or technical ability so anyone can do it
Scale also, you can create nudes of everyone on Earth in a fraction of the time it would take with Photoshop. All for the lowly cost of electricity.
I mean its as easy as cut and paste.
deleted by creator
What if my goal is to constantly be led around by media every decade to fear things needlessly when when they use the same lazy appeals every decade.
The right have immigrant headlines. The left seem to hate AI and technology now.
What’s mind blowing is how the same headline are used for both.
Ehhhh, I like to think that eventually society will adapt to this. When everyone has nudes, nobody has nudes.
You might think so, but I don’t hold as much hope.
Not with the rise of holier than thou moral crusaders who try to slutshame anyone who shows any amount of skin.
I like to be optimistic, eventually such crusaders will have such tools turned against them and that will be that. Even they will begin doubting whether any nudes are real.
Still, I’m not so naive that I think it can’t turn any other way. They might just do that thing they do with abortions, that is the line of reasoning that goes: “the only acceptable abortion is my abortion”, now changed to “the only fake nudes, are my nudes”
Unfortunately, I doubt it will be everyone. It will primarily be young women, because we hyper-sexualize those…
It would also take a lot more effort to get something even remotely believable. You would need to go through thousands of body and face photos to get a decent match and then put in some effort pairing the two photos together. A decent “nude” photo of a celebrity would probably take at least a day to make the first one.
so anyone can do it
so anyone can do it and the victim can be your neighbor next door, not some celebrity, where you can internally normalize it with “well, it is a price of fame”
unfortunately, this list is only going to grow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suicides_attributed_to_bullying
imho, not dissimilar to model planes>drones.
To operate a model plane, there was a not-small amount of effort you needed to work through (building, specialist components, local club, access to a proper field, etc.).
This meant that by the time you were flying, you probably had a pretty good understanding of being responsible with the new skill.In the era of self-stabilising GPS guided UAVs delivered next-day ready-to-fly, the barrier to entry flew down.
And it took a little while for the legislation to catch up from “the clubs are usually sensible” to “don’t fly a 2KG drone over a crowd of people at head height with no experience or training”Have you tried to get consistent goal orientated results from these ai tools.
To reliably generate a person you need to configure many components, fiddle with the prompts and constantly tweak.
To do this well in my eyes is a fair bit harder than learning how to use the magic wand in Photoshop.
I mean, inpainting isn’t particularly hard to make use of. There are also tools specifically for the purpose of generating “deepfake” nudes. The barrier for entry is much, much lower.
deleted by creator
You could also just find the promps online and paste them in.
So it’s perfectly ok as long as you’re cool?
When Photoshop first appeared, image manipulations that would seem obvious and amateurish by today’s standards were considered very convincing—the level of skill needed to fool large numbers of people increased as people became more familiar with the technology. I suspect the same process will play out with AI images—in a few years people will be much more experienced at spotting them, and making a convincing fake will take as much effort as it now does in Photoshop.
Nope, the ai will continue to get better, and soon spotting the fakes will be nearly impossible.
deleted by creator
Because now, anyone can do it to anyone with zero effort and a single photo.
Sure, before anyone with decent Photoshop skills could put together a halfway decently convincing fake nude but its still significantly more effort and time than most would be bothered with and even then its fairly easy to spot and dispute a fake.
Most people weren’t concerned if a celebrity’s fake nudes were spread around before but now that a colleague, student, teacher, family member, or even a random member of the public could generate a convincing photo the threat has become far more real and far more conceivable
To be fair. Photoshop has made tasks like this incredible simple. With a “good” photo, the process is much less esoteric now than it was once.
deleted by creator
It was a big deal back then as well, dumbass
You deserve the insult more than him
It’s only a big deal because of puritan society like in the US or UK or similar in the first place. There are societies where nudity is not a big deal anyway, so nude photos of someone are also no big deal.
Look at Germany for example. Lots of FKK (nude) areas. No one really bats an eye. Of course there nudity is also not perfectly normalized, especially in some circles. But still, not many are concerned about nude pictures of themselves.
Obviously AI makes more nude pictures faster than someone skilled at Photoshop. So if your society has a problem with nudity, there will be more problems than before.
But really, there shouldn’t be a problem anyway.
Look at Germany for example. Lots of FKK (nude) areas. No one really bats an eye.
We still don’t appreciate our nudes posted online, fake or not.
Of course there nudity is also not perfectly normalized, especially in some circles.
Also obviously because of privacy reasons people don’t like their pictures posted online, nude or not.
They’re not even actual nudes - they’re fake. It seems to me to be no different than putting someone’s head on a Big Bird photo.
That said, nobody gets to decide what’s offensive to other people. Just do as they ask and don’t do the fake nudes. It’s not like there’s a shortage of porn done by willing adults.
I’m not saying people should do it. I’m just talking about a fundamental principle to keep yourself happy: to not be hurt by what other people are doing. In the end, you can’t control what other people will do. But you can control your reaction to what they do.
Of course, everyone is also allowed to disagree with this advice. I’m just sharing what works for me. If someone wants to feel bad/offended about someone making a fake nude of them, I don’t want to stop anyone doing that (and I can’t).
I have a similar opininipn. People have been forging!/editing photographs and movies for as long as the technique existed.
Now any stupid kid can do it, the hard part with AI is actually not getting porn. If it can teach everyone that fake photo are a thing, and make nudes worthless (what’s the point of a nude anyway ? Genitals looks like… Genitals)
deleted by creator
Mostly dating situations are where it matters.
When does it matter in a dating situation?
Sexting
In what way exactly? I’m sorry, I don’t see it
People who are thinking of dating, or who are dating have been known to send nudes to each other.
This serves several purposes, it indicates interest, it’s meant to entice interest, it’s a sign that things are going well, sets the mood sets the tone etc it is a form of sexual communication which is necessary, and not unheard of, when people are dating
Oh, I thought you were talking about where fake nudes matter. I didn’t think we were talking about “legitimate” uses of nudes, because this whole thread is about fakes :D
How on earth is it NECESSARY? What do you think people did before photography?
It’s not necessary.
This whole thread was in response to “What is the point of a nude anyway”
Honestly? It was kind of shitty back then and is just as shitty nowadays.
I mean, I get why people do it. But in my honest opinion, it’s still a blatant violation of that person’s dignity, at least if it’s distributed.
It’s not that now it’s bad… it’s that now it’s actually being addressed. Whereas before it was just something people would sweep under the rug as being distasteful, but not worthy of attention.
deleted by creator
If AI is so convincing, why would anyone care about nudes being controversial anymore? You can just assume it’s always fake. If everything is fake, why would anyone care?
Specifically because it’s convincing. You may just assume everything is fake, that doesn’t mean everyone will. You may not care about seeing someone’s imperceptibly realistic nude, but if it’s depicting them they may care, and they deserve the right for people not to see them like that.
Just because it’s not logistically feasible to prevent convincing AI nudes from spreading around doesn’t make it ethical
deleted by creator
That is where we are not seeing this the same way. You wanna make fake images, knock yourself out. I don’t care who they are. Make some of me for all I care.
deleted by creator
Real helpful and smart comment btw. Uou must be fun to be around.
deleted by creator
It’s always been a big deal, it just died down as Photoshop as a tool became normalized and people became accustomed to it as a tool.
I got a few comments pointing this out. But media is hell bent on convincing people to hate AI tools and advancements. Why? I don’t know.
Tin foil hate is that it can be an equalizer. Powerful people that own media like to keep power tools to themselves and want the regular folk to fear and regulate ourselves from using it.
Like could you imagine if common folk rode dragons in GOT. Absolutely disgusting. People need to fear them and only certain people can use it.
Same idea. If you’re skeptical, go look up all the headlines about AI in the past year and compare them to right wing media’s headlines about immigration. They’re practically identical.
“Think of the women and children.”
“They’re TAKING OUR JOBS”
“Lot of turds showing up on beaches lately”
“What if they kill us”
“THEY’RE STEALING OUR RESOURCES”
You’re looking for a cat’s fifth leg. There is no conspiracy. It’s just new technology and what’s new is scary, specially big leaps, which this new age of machine learning seems to be part of.
It was a big deal back then, too, but a lot harder to police, and a lot more obvious that they were fakes.
Gillian Anderson fakes were real fuckin popular during the time the X-Files were on the air.
EDIT: Searching for women from the time talking about the phenomenon in the 90’s is difficult because it mostly turns up… troves of fake nudes of these women. Of course.
Did any women or men fight back from having nudes of them on the new like Swift did?
I recall women heavily disliking it back then, but I also recall that people in general viewed the internet as just full of weirdos and creeps. Internet wasn’t mainstream, by any stretch of the imagination, so I think it likely “got swept under the rug” because of a general feeling of “who cares what weirdos do online? We’re real people and we never use the internet because we have lives.”
Also, fewer lawyers understood the tech at the time, or how to figure out who was producing these images, and how to prosecute them. So I’d wager that part of going after them was held back by tech-unsavvy lawyers who were like “What’s happening where and how? Dowhatnow? Can you FAX it to me?”
Yes plenty. Natalie Portman fakes were a big deal
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2007-07/26/content_6002664.htm
Did she ever unleash her wrath like the article says…Maybe the nerd in me but never wanted to see her naked just want to see her in a Princessesque Liae outfit. IYKYK
Because previously if someone had the skills to get rich off the skill making convincing fake nudes we could arrest and punish them - people with similar skillsets would usually prefer more legitimate work.
Now some ass in his basement can crank them out and it’s a futile game of whack-a-mole to kill them dead.
it’s a futile game of whack-a-mole
It’s still going to be futile even with this law in place. Society is going to have to get used to the fact that photo-realistic images aren’t evidence of anything (especially since the technology will keep improving).
It blows my mind when I think about where we might be headed with this tech. We’ve gotten SO used to the ability to communicate instantly with people far away in the technology age, how will we adapt when we have to go back 300 years and can only trust something someone tells us in person. Will we go back to local newspapers? Or can we not even trust that? Will we have public amphitheaters in busy parts of town, where people will around the news? And we can only trust these people, who have a direct chain of acquaintance all the way back to the source of the information? That seems extreme, but I dunno.
I think most likely we won’t implement extreme measures like that, to ensure we’re still getting genuine information. I think most likely we’ll just slip into completely generated false news from every source, no longer have any idea what’s really going on, but be convinced this AI thing was overblown, and have no idea we’re being controlled.
I don’t think it will be quite that bad. Society worked before photography was invented and now we have cryptographic ways to make sure you’re really talking to the person you think you’re talking to.
Truuue, I hadn’t thought of that. Okay, at least it won’t be as bad as I feared.
Now I just have to sell all these vintage printing presses I bought…
If it’s a game of whack-your-hog, however, deepfakes aren’t futile at all.
