A mother and her 14-year-old daughter are advocating for better protections for victims after AI-generated nude images of the teen and other female classmates were circulated at a high school in New Jersey.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, officials are investigating an incident involving a teenage boy who allegedly used artificial intelligence to create and distribute similar images of other students – also teen girls - that attend a high school in suburban Seattle, Washington.

The disturbing cases have put a spotlight yet again on explicit AI-generated material that overwhelmingly harms women and children and is booming online at an unprecedented rate. According to an analysis by independent researcher Genevieve Oh that was shared with The Associated Press, more than 143,000 new deepfake videos were posted online this year, which surpasses every other year combined.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it’s depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?

      • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m unsure of the point you’re trying to make?

        It’s relevant in this case because the age they are today is underage. A picture of them 10 years ago is underage. And a picture of anyone made by AI to deep fake them nude is unethical irregardless of age. But it’s especially concerning when the goal is to depict underage girls as nude. The age thing specifically could get a little complicated in certain situations ig, but the intent is obvious most of the time.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m obviously not advocating or defending any particular behavior.

          Legally speaking, why is what age they are today relevant rather than the age they are depicted as in the picture? Like, imagine we have a picture 20 years from now of someone at age 37. It’s legally fine until it’s revealed it was generated in 2023 when the person in question was 17? If the exact same picture was generated a year later it’s fine again?

          • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Basically, yes.

            Is the person under-age at the time the image was generated? and … Is the image sexual in nature?

            If yes, then generating or possessing such an image ought to be a crime.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        IDK why this dumb thought experiment makes me so grumpy everyone someone invokes it, but you’re going to have to explain how it’s relevant here.

        • Lemming6969@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          How many pieces do you have to change before it’s not closely enough related? If every piece is modified, is it the same base image? If it’s not the same image, when does it cease to represent the original and must be reassessed? If it’s no longer the image of a real person, given the extreme variety in both real and imagined people, how can an AI image ever be illegal? If you morph between an image of a horse and an illegal image, at what exact point does it become illegal? What about a person and an illegal image? What about an ai generated borderline image and an illegal image? At some point, a legal image changes into an illegal image, and that point is nearly impossible to define. Likewise, the transition between a real and imagined person is the same, or the likeness between two similar looking real, but different, or imagined people.

          • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            that point is nearly impossible to define

            As with any law, there will undoubtedly be cases in which it is difficult to discern whether or not a law has been broken, but courts decide on innocence or guilt in such cases every day. A jury would be asked to decide whether a a reasonable third party is likely to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the image depicts a person who is under 18.

            Whether or not the depicted person is real or imagined is not relevant in many / most jurisdictions.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it’s depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?