this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
271 points (92.7% liked)

Technology

34185 readers
139 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] parpol@programming.dev 117 points 2 months ago (51 children)

His record should be expunged when he turns 18 because it was a crime he committed as a child. I understand their frustrations, but they're asking to jail a child over some photoshopped images.

Making a deepfake is definitely not a heavy crime that deserves jailtime or a permanent mark unless he was an adult doing it.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 40 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 children)

My personal belief still is that the prohibitive approach is futile and ultimately more harmful than the alternative: embrace the technology, promote it and create deepfakes of everyone.

Soon the taboo will be gone, the appeal as well, and everyone will have plausible deniability too, because if there are dozens of fake nudes of any given person then who is to say which are real, and why does it even matter at that point?

This would be a great opportunity to advance our societal values and morals beyond prudish notions, but instead we double down on them.

E: just to clarify I do not at all want to endorse creating nudity of minors here. Just point out that the girl in the article wouldn't have to humiliate herself trying to do damage control in the above scenario, because it would be entirely unimportant.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 months ago (5 children)

This sounds like a cool idea because it is a novel approach, and it appeals to my general heuristic of the inevitability of technology and freedom. However, I don't think it's actually a good idea. People are entitled privacy, on this I hope we agree -- and I believe this is because of something more fundamental: people are entitled dignity. If you think we'll reach a point in this lifetime where it will be too commonplace to be a threat to someone's dignity, I just don't agree.

Not saying the solution is to ban the technology though.

[–] fatalError@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

When you put out photos of yourself on the internet you should expect anyone to find them and do whatever they want to them. If you aren't expecting that, then you aren't educated enough on how internet works and that's what we should be working on. Social media is really bad for privacy and many people are not aware of it.

Now if someone took a picture of you and then edited it without your consent, that is a different action and it's a lot more serious offense.

Either way, deepfakes are just an evolution of something that already existed before and isn't going away anytime soon.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah I mean it's just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.

I agree people need to understand better the privacy risks of social media.

When you put out photos of yourself on the internet you should expect anyone to find them and do whatever they want to them.

Expect, yeah I guess. Doesn't mean we should tolerate it. I expect murder to happen on a daily basis. People editing images of me on their own devices and keeping that to themself, that's their business. But if they edit photos of me and proliferate, I think it becomes my business. Fortunately, there are no photos of me on the internet.

Edit: I basically agree with you regarding text content. I'm not sure why I feel different about images of me. Maybe because it's a fingerprint. I don't mind so much people editing pictures I post that don't include my face. Hmm.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yeah I mean it's just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.

Photoshop has the same technology baked into it now. Sure, it has "safeguards" so it may not generate nudes, but it would have no trouble depicting someone "having dinner with Bill Cosby" or whatever you feel is reputation destroying.

[–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Pretty sure they're talking about generative AI created deepfakes being easier than manually cutting out someone's face and pasting it on a photo of a naked person, not comparing Adobe's AI to a different model.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Ok then it's a more easy to use GIMP.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (47 replies)