Spain Sentences 15 Schoolchildren Over AI-Generated Naked Images (theguardian.com) 119
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A court in south-west Spain has sentenced 15 schoolchildren to a year's probation for creating and spreading AI-generated images of their female peers in a case that prompted a debate on the harmful and abusive uses of deepfake technology. Police began investigating the matter last year after parents in the Extremaduran town of Almendralejo reported that faked naked pictures of their daughters were being circulated on WhatsApp groups. The mother of one of the victims said the dissemination of the pictures on WhatsApp had been going on since July.
"Many girls were completely terrified and had tremendous anxiety attacks because they were suffering this in silence," she told Reuters at the time. "They felt bad and were afraid to tell and be blamed for it." On Tuesday, a youth court in the city of Badajoz said it had convicted the minors of 20 counts of creating child abuse images and 20 counts of offenses against their victims' moral integrity. Each of the defendants was handed a year's probation and ordered to attend classes on gender and equality awareness, and on the "responsible use of technology." [...] Police identified several teenagers aged between 13 and 15 as being responsible for generating and sharing the images. Under Spanish law minors under 14 cannot be charged but their cases are sent to child protection services, which can force them to take part in rehabilitation courses. Further reading: First-Known TikTok Mob Attack Led By Middle Schoolers Tormenting Teachers
"Many girls were completely terrified and had tremendous anxiety attacks because they were suffering this in silence," she told Reuters at the time. "They felt bad and were afraid to tell and be blamed for it." On Tuesday, a youth court in the city of Badajoz said it had convicted the minors of 20 counts of creating child abuse images and 20 counts of offenses against their victims' moral integrity. Each of the defendants was handed a year's probation and ordered to attend classes on gender and equality awareness, and on the "responsible use of technology." [...] Police identified several teenagers aged between 13 and 15 as being responsible for generating and sharing the images. Under Spanish law minors under 14 cannot be charged but their cases are sent to child protection services, which can force them to take part in rehabilitation courses. Further reading: First-Known TikTok Mob Attack Led By Middle Schoolers Tormenting Teachers
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
See subject
Re: (Score:2)
Ok...this is really a thing...???
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Ok...this is really a thing...???
Yeah, they'll be forced to binge watch all 5 seasons of Star Trek Discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok...this is really a thing...???
Yeah, they'll be forced to binge watch all 5 seasons of Star Trek Discovery.
Cruel and unusual punishment? (I've never seen it, but I'm assuming.)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Cruel and unusual punishment? (I've never seen it, but I'm assuming.)
Hardly. It's better than Voyager, and certainly better than S1 TNG.
Re: (Score:2)
Go re-watch S1 TNG. It is not as good as you remember.
I did not check out the later seasons, I'm going to pretend they are still golden, but is Dis better than what I saw in S1? Oh yes, it's not even a contest.
Re: (Score:2)
I recently binged Discovery on my own choice... is watchable and may hit a good spot if you, like me, didn't watch Trek in a while. Yes, it has some silly science (spore drive) and a lot of forced gender and equality awareness (with no relation to the story), but it also had some good Trek moments. Overall, is a positive.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it has some silly science (spore drive) and a lot of forced gender and equality awareness (with no relation to the story), but it also had some good Trek moments. Overall, is a positive.
I mean, if done well, gender and equality awareness would be very Trek. But in the style of Trek, done well means either encountering a civilization where such equality is not accepted and helping someone escape from that (with at most only a tiny bit of explanation about why helping that person is the right thing to do and how the Federation values our differences, etc.) or having characters that are outside of the usual gender norms on the ship and having other characters treat those characters as entire
Re: (Score:1)
Yes it is.
But go ahead and dismiss the value of something you know absolutely nothing about. At this point, no one expects you to have informed opinions anyway.
your sig (Score:2)
I think your sig it largely speaking wrong. The author has fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the baloney detection kit. It's a kit not a weapon or bludgeon to use in an argument. It's there for you so you can spot baloney. It's not a kit to force other people to see reason.
The kit works fine, but you're holding it wrong
Re: (Score:2)
You've completely misunderstood the article. Regardless of its purpose, that's how it's being used.
Re: (Score:2)
But the title is "your baloney detection kit sucks". Which it doesn't. Mayne "you're using your baloney detection kit wrong" would be better. Nonetheless I'm prepared to give a free pass to a spicy title. We all do this. But skip to the conclusion:
"The Baloney Detection Kit is a cache of offensive weapons, and for many discussions it's better to leave it behind and go in unarmed."
No it isn't! It is not an offensive weapon! It's not there to (attempt to) bludgeon people with. It's something to be used by you
Re: (Score:2)
But the title is "your baloney detection kit sucks". Which it doesn't.
Ah, but it does! It's caused far more problems than it ever hoped to solve. It's given countless people a hopelessly distorted understanding of reason, logic, and rhetoric. As you point out, it's also been misused and misunderstood. By any measure, it's been a failure.
I've seen an astonishing amount of anti-science and pseudo-scientific nonsense posted and vigorously defended by self-proclaimed rationalists, fighting valiantly from their keyboards against the very things they're unintentionally promulgat
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but.
Would those people have simply latched on to something else instead?
Did the baloney detection kit create them, or so they simply wear it as a badge?
Maybe Sagan shouldn't have framed it the way he did, as some secret slowly attained through years of academic rigor. I can't say for sure where he went wrong, but I'm willing to bet that this isn't the outcome he had in mind.
Yeah I doubt he had in mind the idea that people would vigorously wave the kit around while yelling at each other on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Would those people have simply latched on to something else instead?
Probably. Though the frustrating reality is that many of them will latch on to pseudoscience either way.
I find it useful as a baloney detection kit for myself. If I want to decide whether something is baloney or not for me.
I'm glad you've found it useful, but don't you think we could do a lot better? Ignoring the complaints in the article for a moment, it's surprisingly unfocused. I'm not sure how he expected anyone to make use of the 'tools' in his kit without a lot more background. If he's writing for people with a clear understanding of philosophy of science and the process of scientific inquiry, then none of this is n
Re: (Score:2)
Had Sagan instead just given a quick overview of philosophy of science and the process of scientific inquiry, they'd have known that statements like that are non-science nonsense.
He did though? It's a chapter somewhere in the last half of "the demon haunted world". After giving a lot of what amount to case studies in the first half of how people have missapplied thinking and so on, he kind of summarizes what went into the earlier critiques as the baloney detection kit.
Then again that fits with the earlier p
Re: (Score:2)
One can EASILY navigate successfully through life without having to study "gender"...something that is plain as day to the vast majority of earth dwellers...
This can be seen clearly since the dawn of time up until about, what...5-10 years ago when they actually started trying to make this a thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Seems a stupid thing to waste a class on.
That's because you know absolutely nothing about the subject but fancy yourself an expert. This is Dunning-Kruger writ large.
what...5-10 years ago when they actually started trying to make this a thing?
Wow, not even close. Your ignorance truly knows no bounds.
Protip: If you don't want people to think you're an idiot, stop posting laughably uninformed "opinions" about things you clearly know nothing about.
Re: (Score:2)
What is a "Dunning-Kruger"?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't be serious... [thedecisionlab.com]
The Dunning-Kruger effect occurs when a person's lack of knowledge and skill in a certain area causes them to overestimate their own competence.
Re: (Score:2)
Take heart in knowing that most of the world isn't participating in this stupidity and others who have been are already pulling it back as research comes in to show how destructive some of these actions are to the mental and physical health of people.
To quote an old Despair.com poster: "It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others".
Re: (Score:2)
For 13-15 yr olds too. Have they ever encountered a boy this age?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
>This is for parents to deal with, or not as they see fit!
Like beating the shit out of the kids spreading fake nudes of their daughters? As the parents see fit, of course.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly this isn't something the government should be involved in at all. This is for parents to deal with, or not as they see fit! As someone already pointed out this is morally the same as a kid making some really good art of the same thing on paper.
What a bunch of crap. We don't let "parents deal" with crime, we have courts precisely for that reason. And if you can't quite grasp the difference between doing something on paper and then doing something with high accuracy in digital form and then mass distributing it, you're beyond help. But please, do seek it nevertheless.
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly this isn't something the government should be involved in at all. This is for parents to deal with, or not as they see fit! As someone already pointed out this is morally the same as a kid making some really good art of the same thing on paper.
What a bunch of crap. We don't let "parents deal" with crime, we have courts precisely for that reason. And if you can't quite grasp the difference between doing something on paper and then doing something with high accuracy in digital form and then mass distributing it, you're beyond help. But please, do seek it nevertheless.
Why is it an "or"?
They broke the law so the should be dealt with by the legal system, they got probation which is pretty light. However they also did something that is horribly wrong, so they should also be punished by their parents. Both parties can perform their respective responsibilities, even without contradicting or interfering with the other.
Re: (Score:1)
School prank? Are you serious?!
These motherfuckers should be EXECUTED!!
Re: (Score:2)
I presume they don't have sex offender registries over there, but if this happened in the states they would ruin their lives over a school prank.
Once again showing why women would rather be alone in the woods with a bear than a man.
Hans Kristian Graebener = StoneToss
Re:Good (Score:4)
Really? Please rewind about 20 years and talk to my friend's parents. They caught him with a JC Penny's catalog...you know...the one with all the women wearing bras and underwear? Anyways, he had cut out pictures of the girl he liked and pasted them into the catalog and stuck it under his mattress.
And, just to check, you see _absolutely_ nothing different between your friend doing what he did, and your friend buying multiple catalogues, doing his cut-and-paste job, and then posting the result through the letterbox of multiple houses in the neighbourhood, including the girl in question, anonymously? That doesn't strike you as creepy in the slightest?
Re: (Score:2)
As someone already pointed out this is morally the same as a kid making some really good art of the same thing on paper.
Yeah, but that analogy falls apart once we get to "faked naked pictures of their daughters were being circulated on WhatsApp groups". The issue wasn't so much that the kids created fictional nude depictions of their female classmates, but that they shared the images online where it then became a form of cyberbullying. The AI aspect only really noteworthy because it eliminated the need for the artistic skills which are typically required to sketch an image or make a convincing fake in Photoshop.
That being s
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Firstly this isn't something the government should be involved in at all. This is for parents to deal with, or not as they see fit!
If the parents had dealt with it then it would not have reached a point where the government had to step in.
Be a better parent, and we won't need to deal with your child for you. If you can't control your children, because "parenting is too hard", then you are why your children will grow up to be criminals.
Parenting is hard. If you can't do it, don't have kids.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
You are assuming that the parents (of the children making/ distributing the images) knew there was anything to "deal with" before the police came knocking on their doors. I'd put a pint-worth on it (are you over 21, or 14, or whatever the minimum age for drinking is in your country/ county/ city)? that they knew precisely nothing of this until the police came calling.
I'm certainly not going to blame the victim's parents for going to the police. They probably knew there was a near-certainty of the images getting into the hands of people outside the nominal "group of school fellows". Which will certainly have happened now.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that the parents (of the children making/ distributing the images) knew there was anything to "deal with" before the police came knocking on their doors. I'd put a pint-worth on it (are you over 21, or 14, or whatever the minimum age for drinking is in your country/ county/ city)? that they knew precisely nothing of this until the police came calling.
Oh, no. I would not assume the parents knew what was happening... but I assert that it is their responsibility.
As G.I. Joe says "Knowing is half the battle!"
It is hard to be involved in a child's life. It takes time away from your own interests, and children resist your involvement. But the more involved you can be, the more likely you can intervene before something goes catastrophically wrong. I am not a fan of helicopter parenting, but neither can I support leaving children to find their own way. The
Re: (Score:2)
If, and only if, you choose to participate in that. I'll take your word for it, and file the information under "Someone Else's Problem.
I agree that large numbers of parents seem to be extremely irresponsible. So I move on and do something interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
You first.
Hint: When someone is modded +5 insightful and you're modded flamebait, there's evidence they already have contributed at the very least in the eyes of those with mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, it's because my post was absolutely flamebait and his post is the same ignorant nonsense you see idiots without children post all the time. I can only assume at least two mods (his post is not and was not at +5) are also ignorant morons without children.
Hint: Stop posting. You look like an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Live with what exactly? Pictures of their faces on things that aren't their bodies? What if their heads were generated onto dinosaurs or broom sticks? What if the girl's head was generated on a naked man's body? Or a nude baby? I don't see a difference. None them are real. Nothing happened here. Their faces were super imposed onto a computer generated image.
Children minds usually ain't crystal clear like that. Heck, even adults might have trouble dealing with that. Some being afraid to talk about something that isn't real with their parents should tell a lot about the issue
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly this isn't something the government should be involved in at all.
funny you put it that way because as it happens the spanish judiciary is indeed heavily engaged in government :O). this is one of those long lasting legacies of franco's regime.
this has nothing to do with that, thoug. and i will concede that this alone will probably exert little deterrence in general going forward, and the fact that judges had to get involved means several layers of education have already failed in several important areas but still, harm was done, people complained, judges had to do their t
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the girls should fight back by showing the boys with a microdick? No, generally, nude pictures of a minor is the sort of thing that SHOULD get people arrested, if the pictures are real or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Flamebait is right. So, it's ok for the firls to be abused like this, and the boys who did it, well, you don't believe in personal responsibility.
Sounds about right to me (Score:3)
It’s hard enough to make the boys realize that society seriously dissapproves, public enough to deter copycatters, harsh enough to let the girls know that society is totally on their side, but it doesn’t permanently destroy the lives of a boy who makes an idiotic choice as a 14 year old.
Re: (Score:1)
1. This almost certainly counts as making child p^
Re: (Score:2)
I would say the truth is somewhere in the middle. If the "art" STAYS on the maker's computer, it's not really anything more than a young teen undressing another young teen in his imagination. Something that has been going on for a very long time. I'm sure more than one artistically talented teen has gone so far as to make a fake nude drawing or even painting. Distribution is the problem. That's the point where bullying and defamation come in to play.
Representing the pictures to be real and the content of th
Re: (Score:2)
1) I don't believe in thought crimes.
2) If someone generates content like that and keeps it absolutely, 100%, perfectly private, to only themselves, for all time, the discussion is entirely moot. Nobody will ever know, right? No point in even discussing further
3) Number 2 had a ton of caveats. How often does anyone execute something like that perfectly? Almost never. The problem with making stuff like that on
Re: (Score:2)
We're mostly in agreement I think. I believe that with any hot button issue it is very important to finely distinguish what about it is actually harmful. Also important to make sure that those elements are present before sending someone to the gulag. Of course in the story at hand, the distribution is very much present.
But I will say that I and everyone else have a ton of data (less "explosive" data generally) that will never see the light of day, even without any particular effort to secure it beyond just
Re: Sounds about right to me (Score:2)
Well... (Score:2)
"Schoolchildren" (Score:3)
That word makes them sound like innocent little grade school kids.
No, these were teenagers. They totally knew what they were doing, and knew better.
Sounds like lines in the sand are being drawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember the days when actress' heads, including underage actresses, were photoshopped onto porn photos. AI has changed that game in a big way. Spain has decided how to classify images based on real people. Where does completely fictional material of that nature fall? Like anime characters or *searches mind for 3D game with realistic-looking teenage female character* that girl from Last of Us? Or, as an extreme example, the random kids running around in Skyrim?
A lot of lines are going to have to be drawn in the sand over the next decade because this shit isn't going away. Elon Musk joked about robotic catgirls, but silicone love dolls have been around for over 20 years and the available "variety" is hair-raising. Utah, where I'm from, passed a law making such dolls illegal if they're child-like. In fact, I wonder what criteria are used. Height? Plenty of women are "fun size" or have Dwarfism. Bust size? Asian women tend to be lacking in that department. Pubic hair? That costs extra to install and complicates maintenance. Head size in relation to body size? Anime girls throw that out the window. Plus, if someone being unable to get one of those dolls leads them to harm a real child instead, that's obviously bad.
We've got a lot of work to do, and the real work hasn't even started. Sex sells. Always has. Always will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You bring up a bunch of gray examples, but in this case, there's no gray area. The subjects are minors, so ipso facto, it's child porn. In the same way animation doesn't protect you from charges of child porn if the animation is clearly presenting children.
Also, keep in mind that nudity is not pornography. So some of the examples (like video game models) are probably fine in some cases (producing a model) and not in others (making that model engage in sexually suggestive activity). At least in the U.S.,
Re: (Score:2)
There's an argument (not a very good one) that being famous comes with a certain amount of abuse, and people just have to accept it as the price of being a public figure. That is at least a choice for them, unlike having random boys at your school targeting you just for being in the same building or class.
Beyond words... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Given kids today (Score:3)
I get the AI hype etc., but if the images were good enough to fool you into thinking they were real... what if some or even all of them are? Maybe the girls took some nude selfies for their boyfriends... Who turned out to be jackasses.
The whole reaction, while necessary because of the harm done, just reinforces that a naked image is harmful which is regrettable in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shame is a useful tool for preserving enough social conformity that large numbers of people can coexist in (relative) harmony.
But while I've got the nudity taboo myself, I definitely recognize it as counter-productive overall. Well, except for something between people and whatever they might sit on... you really don't want to be the second nude person on a city bus seat on a hot day, right?
Shame matters (Score:3)
Shame evolved to keep tribal apes functional; it's too bad we can't evolve away from the tribalism...
YES, nudity should be shame-free and legal like pot smoking... stop the losing wars!
People think sexually no matter what you do to try to stop them-- they will imagine plenty you can't stop and they will draw pictures if they want... photoshop if they can and now AI if they can't photoshop. I'm fine with it except I'd much rather the kids learn to imagine or at least can learn to use photoshop or learn to d
Re: (Score:2)
This is an example where overly broad statements leads to massive errors in judgement.
Healthy and mature people realize not every situation is within individual control and being around less healthy and immature people (of which there will always at least be young people) that some people are not as capable -- now or maybe forever (such as the permanently retarded.)
Collective power is the greatest power and the reason the most social animal came to dominate earth. Fairness is intrinsic to all primates but s
Freedom of Expression (Score:1)
What exactly is the crime in this case?
The original ban on child pornography, for example — itself an obvious Freedom of Speech violation — was justified by the need to protect the minors from the abuse itself. Because the only way to produce such photos and videos was to commit the (statutory) rape shown therein.
But if it is AI-generated, who exactly is the victim? It may be in poor taste, but it is — or ought to be — protected by the Freedom of Expression concept...
An AI-generated
Re: (Score:3)
The original ban on child pornography, for example â" itself an obvious Freedom of Speech violation
I love how you state spicy opinions as facts. No it is not "obviously a Freedom of Speech violation".
But if it is AI-generated, who exactly is the victim?
The actual literal victims in TFA are the victims. Tricky concept!
It may be in poor taste, but it is â" or ought to be â" protected by the Freedom of Expression concept...
At the minimum it's defamation. Such has never been protected by "freed
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, it is! We choose to exempt some speech — like defamation — from the protections, but, generally, any time one is prosecuted for saying, rather than doing, something, their Freedom of Speech is affected. By definition.
How? What exactly has happened to them? Were they beaten? Were they robbed? Were they denied access anywhere? Can I still draw a caricature of someone in your world? Wh
Re: (Score:2)
How were they the victims? Read TFA.
I mean that's just the usual laziness on your part.
The really special bit and this is marvelous is that you put a prompt into an AI image generator and forgot to check if it actually did what you ask. And you double down because you know what prompt you used but were too lazy to even look at the images!
The thing is I don't need to read the description because I have eyes and a brain and I can see what's in an image without being told.
Re: (Score:1)
Thus begins TFA:
Just as I conc
Re: (Score:2)
Get it? Likeness
Back in the real world, most people recognize that defamation is a thing. In other words saying something untrue about someone can be harmful. If porn can be speech, then it can be defamation too.
but it is not â" or should not be â" a crime
It is quite clearly a crime. You are literally denying reality to say otherwise. As to whether it should be: very very few people think it shouldn't and saying so with lots of emphasis using italics doesn't actually constitute an argument to the
Why not say child pornografie? (Score:1)
child porn (Score:2)
Using AI to generate naked pictures of your schoolmates should lead to charges of producing and distributing child pornography. This is the appropriate measured response. If a kids life is ruined, we can at least take comfort that we stopping others from ruining the lives of their school mates by making it clear that this sort of behavior is not tolerated at all; like taking a gun to school.
Sentence future Picassos? (Score:1)
The stupidity is breathtaking.
The tech is there, it will be used.
The photos are not real.
Get over it.
Sounds like primitive people afraid the laterna magica steals their soul.
Wrong way of handling this (Score:2)
First of all, there is no question that what these kids did was wrong and harmful. I imagine that for a teenage girl, something like this could be extremely distressing. These kids knew or should have known the distress they would cause, but they did it anyway.
But calling police and taking this to court is a completely wrong way of handling this. By all means expel these boys from school or apply some similar punishment. But prosecuting this under
creating child abuse images
- obviously a law meant to deal with paedophiles - is ridic
no fake male nudes? (Score:1)
What, no fake male nudes made by girls? I thought girls were just like boys.
Parenting not mentioned, I'm very confused here. (Score:2)
Since when is court the first option? Also why wouldn't the court come down on the parents first, if they'd presumably been told to take responsibility?
Not being snarky, I just want to know what the thinking is behind this, that the parents weren't even mentioned. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Re: ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
There the issue of consent from the "models". Even disregarding the kiddie porn it should still be illegal
Re: (Score:2)
Is that illegal in Spain, though? Because before we passed laws in the U.S. specifically to stop it, I think the typical interpretation was that the photographer owns the photo and can do with it what they want, as long as the subject wasn't being filmed secretly.
Re:ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)
the only reason kiddie porn was made illegal was that it was seen as a way to stop sex abuse.
I would say that the very act of circulating simulated sexual images featuring sufficient details of their likeness amongst the girls' peer group constitutes a child sexual abuse and psychological abuse. They generated simulated nude images of another person, which makes that other person a victim, because:
"Many girls were completely terrified and had tremendous anxiety attacks because they were suffering this in silence," she told Reuters at the time. "They felt bad and were afraid to tell and be blamed for it."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure I understand why anybody would be ashamed of a picture that's not a picture of them. I mean, the face is, but that's not the part everybody's worked up about.
These are described as "naked pictures of another person" but they're really not; it's that person's head stitched onto somebody (or something?) imagining what that person looks like naked.
It isn't nice to do to somebody. So I'm not defending the people who made these images. But they're not ACTUALLY pictures of these people naked.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand why anybody would be ashamed of a picture that's not a picture of them.
Imagine you went to your job and there were fake pictures of you naked pinned up all over the office. I'm sure you'd be none too pleased, regardless of the fact that they weren't genuine images. It's still a form of harassment/bullying, and that's the part that makes it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're almost entirely in agreement. It is wrong and the people distributing them should be punished. (I'm not sure about the act of creation, though.)
What I don't understand is why the girls couldn't say "some jerk is posting pictures of somebody naked with my face" with zero shame, rather than having to ashamedly say "some jerk is posting naked pictures of me".
Re: (Score:3)
Because kids that age are extremely self-conscious/body-conscious.
Haven't you ever heard of girls that age who are afraid to tell their parents they've got their period?
Re: (Score:2)
But why be self/body conscious about a self/body that is not theirs?
Re: ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you a human being who was once a teen ? If so, you shouldn't need to have it explained to you.
Re: ridiculous (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How do others know that it is not her body? Guess she could whip out her tit and show that her nipples are different.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps this is a good thing about this AI stuff: I would think the assumption would be that it's fake.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if that would be the assumption. There's been enough cases of real images being shared among teenagers, who are often horny and dumb enough to do sexting.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being a jaqoff. You know why. You were a self conscious teenager surrounded by self consciousness teenager at that age, and don't pretend otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Often teenage girls wear clothing that deliberately hides the shape of their bodies. There was a moral panic about padded bras for 11 year olds in the UK some years ago, but it turns out that those kids were buying them to cover up the shape of their bodies, not to enhance their busts. They preferred a fake silhouette, even if it was more "adult" in shape.
Even if the AI version of their body isn't entirely accurate, it's clear that it's a very sensitive subject and the cause of a lot of distress. You can ar
Re: (Score:3)
What I don't understand is why the girls couldn't say "some jerk is posting pictures of somebody naked with my face" with zero shame, rather than having to ashamedly say "some jerk is posting naked pictures of me".
The default response when you don't understand why someone feels a particular way about something should be to accept that they may have a very good reason for doing so that you are just unaware of.
Re:ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I understand why anybody would be ashamed of a picture that's not a picture of them.
Fortunately, your inability to understand the nature of the harm doesn't matter in the slightest.
But they're not ACTUALLY pictures of these people naked.
That is completely irrelevant.
Re: ridiculous (Score:2)
We are in complete agreement.
Moreover, other people don't know that they're fake pictures.
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure I understand why anybody would be ashamed of a picture that's not a picture of them.
Except that it *is* of them, in the sense that is meant to represent them.
I think to understand what it would feel like, you have to start with what people who do this are trying to do: direct unwanted attention upon the subject. This violates really a fundamental thing we all cherish: the right to be left alone.
Of course none of us wants to be left *completely* alone. We want to be in control of our interactions, *to define ourselves* in other peoples' eyes through our own words and actions and personal style. And that is what this takes away from someone; it poisons the victim's interactions with her by placing that image in their minds any time she is present. The fact that the body in the picture is generated algorithmically is neither here nor there; it's the *effect* that image has that is harmful, an that harm is intentional.
Now for the technological aspect of this: you could accomplish the same thing by drawing a cartoon, *if you were a really talented artist*. But that's rare. Crudely drawn teenage cartoons are still hurtful, but they draw as much attention to the artist as the victim. Generative AI is a tool which enables anyone, even someone without a shred of talent, to have the expressive power of a more capable person. It allows any idiot to create compelling images of you.
Now if you're in your sixties, like I am, you'd shrug it off because you have a public identity established by a long lifetime of actions. But to do this to a child is harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
"Crudely drawn teenage cartoons are still..." child porn. There's no animation defense to child pornography. If the subject of a pornographic image is intended to be underage, it's illegal.
Re: ridiculous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ridiculous (Score:2)
You're saying people should be ashamed of being securely harassed? Shouldn't the harasser be the one who's ashamed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've said from the beginning that the people distributing this stuff should be punished. My contention is that the girls haven't done anything to be ashamed of. I'm confused what's controversial?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether other people believe they ought to be ashamed or not.
The fact is that the photos damaged them, and the damage is a sexual abuse and an assault.
It also doesn't matter that the photo does not physically come from their image if it Is designed to depict them, then that is good enough.
You can liken it to the crime "Assault with a deadly weapon" - At some point courts had to decide whether an Unloaded fake but realistic-looking you gun counts as a deadly weapon. And the decision
Re: (Score:2)
Again, all I'm saying is the girls shouldn't need to be ashamed. Did not argue for a light sentence for the perps.