Police investigation remains open. The photo of one of the minors included a fly; that is the logo of Clothoff, the application that is presumably being used to create the images, which promotes its services with the slogan: “Undress anybody with our free service!”

  • aard ( aard@kyu.de ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    162
    ·
    3 years ago

    This was just a matter of time - and there isn’t really that much the affected can do (and in some cases, should do). Shutting down that service is the correct thing - but that’ll only buy a short amount of time: Training custom models is trivial nowadays, and both the skill and hardware to do so is in reach of the age group in question.

    So in the long term we’ll see that shift to images generated at home, by kids often too young to be prosecuted - and you won’t be able to stop that unless you start outlawing most of AI image generation tools.

    At least in Germany the dealing with child/youth pornography got badly botched by incompetent populists in the government - which would send any of those parents to jail for at least a year, if they take possession of one of those generated pictures. Having it sent to their phone and going to police for a complaint would be sufficient to get prosecution against them started.

    There’s one blessing coming out of that mess, though: For girls who did take pictures, and had them leaked, saying “they’re AI generated” is becoming a plausible way out.

  • rufus ( rufus@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Interesting. Replika AI, ChatGPT etc crack down on me for doing erotic stories and roleplay text dialogues. And this Clothoff App happily draws child pornography of 14 year olds? Shaking my head…

    I wonder why they have no address etc on their website and the app isn’t available in any of the proper app-stores.

    Obviously police should ask Instagram who blackmails all these girls… Teach them a proper lesson. And then stop this company. Have them fined a few millions for generating and spreading synthetic CP. At least write a letter to their hosting or payment providers.

      • rufus ( rufus@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 years ago

        I just hope they even try to catch these people. I’ve tried to look up who’s behind that and it’s a domain that’s with name.com and the server is behind Cloudflare. I’m not Anonymous, so that’s the point at which I’m at my wits’ end. Someone enraged could file a few reports at their abuse contacts… Just sayin…

        There’s always the possibility they just catch the boy and just punish him. Letting the even more disgusting people in the background keep doing what they want. Because it would be difficult to get a hold of them. This would be the easiest route for the prosecuters and the least efficient way to deal with this issue as a whole.

  • rayyyy ( rayyyy@kbin.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    3 years ago

    The shock value of a nude picture will become increasingly humdrum as they become more widespread. Nudes will become so common that no one will batt an eye. In fact, some less endowed, less perfect ladies will no doubt do AI generated pictures or movies of themselves to sell on the internet. Think of it as photoshop X 10.

  • Margot Robbie ( MargotRobbie@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 years ago

    Banning diffusion models doesn’t work, the tech is already out there and you can’t put it back in the box. Fake nudes used to be done with PhotoShop, the current generative AI models only makes them faster to make.

    This can only be stopped on the distribution side, and any new laws should focus on that.

    But the silver lining of this whole thing is that nude scandals for celebs aren’t really possible any more if you can just say it’s probably a deepfake.

    • PolarisFx ( PolarisFx@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yea, with 15 good headshots from different angles I can build a LoRA for anybody, hell Civit is full of celebrity LoRA’s.

      Mage.space already had to switch to SFW because people were generating CP. The past couple weeks I’ve been playing with stable diffusion and some of the checkpoints easily generate content that I had to delete because they looked REALLY young and it creeped me out.

  • tetraodon ( tetraodon@feddit.it ) deleted by creator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 years ago

    I feel somewhat bad saying this, but the wo/man (it will be a man) who can make an Apple Vision Pro work with AI nudifiers will become rich.

  • duxbellorum ( duxbellorum@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 years ago

    This seems like a pretty significant overreaction. Like yes, it’s gross and it feels personal, but it’s not like any of the subjects were willing participants…their reputation is not being damaged. Would they lose their shit about a kid gluing a cut out of their crush’s face over the face of a pornstar in a magazine? Is this really any different from that?

      • blargerer ( blargerer@kbin.social ) 
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 years ago

        Obviously this is creepy, but the technology is out there, one of those can’t put the genie back in the bottle techs. You can and should look at the people generating the images as creeps, but ultimately we as a society need to learn to not put as much veracity or identity in images now.

        With that said where the fuck did this model get its training data for 14 year olds. That sounds like a more serious issue.

        • barsoap ( barsoap@lemm.ee ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 years ago

          With that said where the fuck did this model get its training data for 14 year olds.

          Nowhere, at least for any model you could get your hands at in public places like civitai. Or, well, it’s not like they can tell whether someone trained on those kinds of pictures but they’re rightly nuking any underage/loli example images, as well as anyone who posts them, from orbit.

          Generally speaking models can be very good at mixing concepts they have an understanding of, say a giraffe with zebra stripes, but that doesn’t mean that you can just combine anything – if you try to generate a nude human with zebra fur you’re bound to get body paint, random skimpy zebra-striped clothing, or at most a fursuit, not convincing fur, unless you use a model trained by furries but at that point you’ll have trouble generating faces without muzzles: The AI just doesn’t know how actual zebrakin look like so it’s either copping out or making stuff up.

          I’ve never tried nor am I remotely attracted to that age range but I wouldn’t be surprised if a paedophile would complain “these aren’t kids they’re scaled-down adults”. Things like the difference between budding and small breasts, ask a biologist I haven’t seen 14yold breasts in over two decades.

          On another note though I’d much rather have paedophiles jack off to generated images than doing anything involving actual children, including creeping around. Lesser of two evils and all that. Therapy, of course, is preferable to both.

            • barsoap ( barsoap@lemm.ee ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              3 years ago

              I’ll leave the judgement of that to psychologists. What should not be controversial, however, is the amount of direct harm avoided if one can be replaced by the other.

              Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the less shitty.

                • barsoap ( barsoap@lemm.ee ) 
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  that you suggested

                  I did not suggest anything. I expressed a preference: That it’s better if a paedophile jacks off to generated pictures than if they molest actual children. What do you disagree with, there? That both situations are equally bad, that an equal amount of harm is occurring? Have you ever asked a victim about that.

                  There are laws in place about sexualizing minors.

                  Just for the record: Not by a far stretch all countries outlaw drawings, fiction, etc., but only as the German term goes “documents of child abuse”.

                  You can’t just hand wave my response away

                  You mean your accusation and I tend to do that for civility’s sake as doing otherwise tends to result in shouting matches. It is AFAIK currently unknown whether, by and large, paedophiles having access to simulated material for their sexual gratification increases or decreases the incidence of child abuse happening. I have no idea either, you don’t know better either, and it may very well differ on a case-by-case basis. All I’m saying is that I’d rather have them fapping than molesting children is that so hard to understand and why in the everloving fuck would you disagree with that: If anything it’s you who’s trivialising child abuse (and, look, see, I stopped to ignore your incitement and we’re in an accusatory shouting match)

          • ParsnipWitch ( ParsnipWitch@feddit.de ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 years ago

            How do you know that these people replace harassment with these pictures? And not just do both, or even increase their fetishes?

            What about the girls who’s pictures were used as material for these generated images?

            • barsoap ( barsoap@lemm.ee ) 
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 years ago

              How do you know that these people replace harassment with these pictures? And not just do both, or even increase their fetishes?

              AFAIK psychologists simply don’t know, and it might be a case by case thing.

              What about the girls who’s pictures were used as material for these generated images?

              As I explained, it might not be necessary to have any underage material in the training data.

              Generally speaking I didn’t come here to have a deep discussion about a very difficult moral and legal issue, I’ll leave that up to the specialists. I wanted to say something about AI and somehow all answers I get are about the last tacked-on paragraph making a quick statement about me preferring keeping paedophiles away from kids.

          • taladar ( taladar@feddit.de ) 
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            3 years ago

            Not that they aren’t both bad but I hate this false equivalence between images that were created by literally raping a child and filming that rape and images that were created purely from the imagination of the creator. This is what is actually enabling child abuse by treating both identically in legal terms because to the person attracted to children you suddenly made the cost identical while they probably prefer the real thing to a fake thing.

        • krellor ( krellor@kbin.social ) 
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 years ago

          Right, the technology is out there so we as a society need to establish norms, customs, and yes, laws governing its use.

          I’m pretty firmly on the side of there being legal consequences for taking pictures of real minors, running them through a service to create nude replicas, and then circulating those pictures. That is wrong on so many levels and could constitute any number of crimes without the AI component including, such as harassment. I mean, intentionally using someone’s likeness to circulate embarrassing materials already had legal consequences. This is just a whole other level of ick on top.

      • duxbellorum ( duxbellorum@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 years ago

        It’s not different, it’s all fake, cobbled together from images of other people’s bodies and will show zero authentic details about the subject except what are already known and visible about them.

        What the fuck are you talking about? Spreading nude photos of any provenance around at work is definitely an HR violation, and the use of my partner’s face in them (just like pasting their face on a pornstar’s photo) is sexual harassment. Nothing about it being AI generated changes any of that equation except to make it a little more uncanny.

        It’s a fad, and how would we deal with you sending your hand drawn pictures around the neighborhood….form a group of concerned moms and raid all of the local art shops to stop the sale of drawing materials?

        The genie is out of the bottle. We can shower these types of content with huge attention which will ultimately extend and expand the fad, we can ignore them because they are pointless, or we can try a futile war on AI porn that, like the war on drugs, will ruin a lot of ultimately benign peoples lives in order to crack down on a few legitimately criminal creeps who probably can already be prosecuted according to existing laws.

        • 0x815 ( 0x815@feddit.de ) OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 years ago

          @duxbellorum

          Why? They didn’t take or share any nudes, and nobody believes they did.

          This is only a nightmare if an ignorant adult tells them that it is.

          So you don’t have children, right?

        • ParsnipWitch ( ParsnipWitch@feddit.de ) 
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 years ago

          Did your picture got taken and shared as a teenager? Did you get heavily sexualised and harassed? Believe me, it feels like a nightmare even if no one is telling you that it should feel like a nightmare.

          Take your “sexual harassment is only bad to teenage girls if you tell them” shit elsewhere.

    • RagnarokOnline ( RagnarokOnline@reddthat.com ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 years ago

      I don’t want to band wagon against you, but I do think it’s important that people who agree with your viewpoint have a chance to understand that the situation is a violation of privacy.

      The kids’ reputation is, likely, damaged. You have an underage girl who is already dealing with the confusion and hierarchy of high school. Then (A) someone generates semi-accurate photos of what their naked body looks like and (B) distributes it to others.

      Issue (A) is bad because it’s essentially CSAM and also because it’s attempting to access a view of someone that the subject likely hasn’t permitted the generator to have access to. This is a privacy violation and the ethics around it are questionable at best.

      Issue (B) is that the generator didn’t stop at the violations of issue (A), but has now shared that material with other people who know the subject without the subject’s consent, and likely without her knowledge of the recipients. This means that the subject now has to perpetually wonder if every person they interact with (friends, teachers, other parents, her own parents) have seen lewd pictures of her. Hopefully you can see how this could disturb a young woman.

      Now apply a different situation to it. Suppose you took a test at school or at work that shows you as dumb (like, laughably dumb; enough to make you feel subconscious). Even if you don’t think it’s a fair test, this test exists. Now, assume that someone shared this test with your friends, co-workers, and even your parents without you knowing exactly who received it. And instead of everyone saying “it’s just a dumb test — it doesn’t mean anything”, they decide it means something about you. Every hour or so, you walk by someone or interact with someone who chuckles or cracks a joke at your expense. You’re not allowed by your community to move on from this test.

      Before your test was released, you could blend in. Now, you’re the person everyone is looking at and judging. Think of that added anxiety on top of everything else you have to deal with.

      • duxbellorum ( duxbellorum@lemm.ee ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 years ago

        I appreciate your intentions, but your examples are just not up to the standard needed to treat AI generated nudes any differently than a nude magazine collage with kids’ crushes faces in it.

        As uncanny as the nudes might be, they are NOT accurate. People know this and they are going to learn one way or another to adjust their definition of “real”. No character details like moles or their actual skin tone, or anything like this will be accurately portrayed. They have no reason to think “someone has seen their naked body”. Yeah, if someone tells them to worry about it, they will, as any young person will, but why? The bigger the deal we make of it, the worse it is, and the litmus test is, is it bad if we decide to ignore it and teach kids that ai generated nudes have nothing to do with them and that they can safely ignore them, then they do basically zero harm.

        How is your test example related to this at all? In the one case, my face and clothed picture is acquired likely with my implied permission from social media and modifications that i did not authorize are added to it and it is then distributed, making me look naked and having no bearing on my person or character (since the ai doesn’t actually know what i look like naked) so no conclusion anyone would draw from it constitutes a disclosure of information about me. The test example constitutes a clear disclosure with provenance to establish the validity of the information, quire a different scenario. It is true that AI chat bots can be jail-broken to release my previous questions which might reveal things about my character that i do not wish to disclose, but that is a different issue and unrelated to these nude generators.

        I’m not saying handing these nudes to a kid or blackmailing them is not criminal or harassment, just that the technology and medium should have almost no bearing on how we treat this.

        • Buddy, I want to let you know that I wrote a big rebuttal and then accidentally canceled my comment and it got erased. In my response I disagreed with your original argument and your rebuttal as well, but that I respected the time it took to share your thoughts. I’m so sad my dumb comment got deleted, lol

          Know that I appreciate your lengthy response back to me.

          Be well.

      • lambalicious ( lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 years ago

        Issue (A) is bad because it’s essentially CSAM and also because it’s attempting to access a view of someone that the subject likely hasn’t permitted the generator to have access to. This is a privacy violation and the ethics around it are questionable at best.

        That part is not a privacy violation, the same way someone drawing in a canvas their own impression of what a bank vault looks like on the inside does not constitute a trespassing / violation of privacy of the bank. Unless the AI in question used actual nudes of them as a basis, but then we wouldn’t need the extra AI step for this to be a problem, right? Otherwise, I’m rather sure that the actual privacy violation starts at (B).

        Ofc, none of that makes it less of a problem, but it does feel to me like it subverts a potential angle for fighting against this.

  • iByteABit [he/him] ( iByteABit@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 years ago

    Governments need to strike hard against all kinds of platforms like this, even if they can be used for legitimate reasons.

    AI is way too dangerous a tool to allow free innovation and market on, it’s the number one technology right now that must be heavily regulated.