752
submitted 5 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY passed a bipartisan bill to provide recourse to victims of porn deepfakes — or sexually-explicit, non-consensual images created with artificial intelligence

The legislation, called the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act — passed in Congress’ upper chamber on Tuesday.  The legislation has been led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in the House.

The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to allow people to sue those who produce, distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography, if they “knew or recklessly disregarded” the fact that the victim did not consent to those images.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

People have been using magazine clippings glued onto porn actress heads since before I was born. Photoshop for over a decade.

How do you delineate between a really good photoshop and "ai"?

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

You don't. This law doesn't distinguish between the two, and quite frankly, shouldn't.

[-] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

So you're saying if someone makes a nude that is remotely similar to your likeness you can sue them.

What do you do about identical twins if one chooses to be a porn star and takes self shots? Wouldn't it look the same? Is it a crime to sell nudes if you have an identical twin?

What about anybody who is not related but looks VERY SIMILAR - we've probably all heard stories of this happening.

Finally, how do you know if it's a US citizen that created the image vs anybody in any other country not bound by US laws?

What if an AI creates a nude and then a child is born, and 20 years later they grow up to look identical to the ai generated image?

There's so many reasons why generated images should be treated like art and protected as free speech imo. It's one thing if someone you know makes fake nudes of you and then uses them to ruin your image - that's likely covered under many other laws including something like slander.

People have been going to 11 trying to do anything preventing machine learning from being used for absolutely anything. It's completely predictable because everyone wants a cut of whatever wealth may be generated by a new technology but maybe we should adapt to the new tool rather than punishing everybody for using it. AI is quickly turning into a tool that will only be usable by multibillion dollar companies with in house legal teams that can handle all the lawsuits.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

So you’re saying if someone makes a nude that is remotely similar to your likeness you can sue them.

The law specifies that the images are indistinguishable from reality and are presented as you, directly or indirectly.

What do you do about identical twins if one chooses to be a porn star and takes self shots? Wouldn’t it look the same? Is it a crime to sell nudes if you have an identical twin?

If the images were of twin A and presented as twin B, I think this law would apply, as it would be fake porn of twin B.

What about anybody who is not related but looks VERY SIMILAR - we’ve probably all heard stories of this happening.

Again, if it's being presented as someone it's not, that's an issue.

Finally, how do you know if it’s a US citizen that created the image vs anybody in any other country not bound by US laws?

Then the law does not apply. That's literally how all laws work.

What if an AI creates a nude and then a child is born, and 20 years later they grow up to look identical to the ai generated image?

Was it presented as a nude of that person that did not yet exist? Impressive that they knew what their parents would name them ahead of time. Again, it must be presented as this person, directly or indirectly. This scenario couldn't happen.

Regarding trying to ruin someone's image, I imagine that would indeed fall under some form of defamation laws, although not slander as that is specifically spoken words. I do agree we must tread carefully regarding free speech rights, however are we not also expected to have our rights to privacy? Even if someone isn't trying to defame us, even if an image is fake, if at face value it's completely indistinguishable from being real does it make a difference? Obviously there's no simple solution and I think I agree with you that a law such as this probably isn't it.

I'm a bit lost on your last bit, however. Are you saying this law will further push AI into the hands of large corporations? I don't see that, so much as see them being forced to implement stronger filters, while pushing users to the open source community in search to get around them. Horny people gonna horny and this law won't stop that, it'd only stop public facing models from producing such content and stop individuals from distributing it.

[-] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I’m a bit lost on your last bit, however. Are you saying this law will further push AI into the hands of large corporations? I don’t see that, so much as see them being forced to implement stronger filters, while pushing users to the open source community in search to get around them. Horny people gonna horny and this law won’t stop that, it’d only stop public facing models from producing such content and stop individuals from distributing it.

Remember how taxi medallions were worth millions and millions of dollars in NYC and Boston before uber? (1.2m was the peak per medallion in nyc. They dropped to like 35k at one point and are now around 140k.) Remember how uber got billions in VC money to fight the taxi industry lobbyists and effectively operates despite violating the systems that were in place for ages that prevented small independent operators from being taxis without having a bunch of seed money? Those billions of dollars let them win the legal fights and continue operating. You or I could never have challenged it.

That's the comparison I was making. If you regulate AI into the ground the only innovations and usage will come from big money interests, because they can eat the lawsuits. Individuals can't eat the lawsuits. The law only applies to the small fries, the big guys cheat and get away with it because there is no transparency and a whole lot of pinky swears.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
752 points (98.6% liked)

News

23664 readers
3552 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS