Submitted 2 days ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to technology@lemmy.zip
Senior UK police officer says AI is accelerating violence against women and girls and that technology companies are complicit
I mean, the majority of deepfakes out there are so bad that I understand that some people don’t care about them. But this stuff keeps getting better with time.
The bad stuff will never go away so people will think they can spot it while the really good stuff will be used for the dangerous stuff
And yes I do count myself as someone who will get it wrong. Just hope I can stave off that time for as long as possible
I can see this. Someone had a comment in another thread that if its for private use its fine and I sorta get that but someone else made the point that ai should not have the info really. So people should really be concerned that ai can have image or video or audio input by users. They should have to use text or non image docs. If someone wants to deepfake and ex they will need to describe them.
Yes, if it was on a locally-hosted generative model, I wouldn’t be bothered if someone did this in my likeness. That wouldn’t be meaningfully different than using Photoshop to fake it ten years ago.
Passing it around to their friends and gods know whom else is still just as reprehensible though.
Yeah and photoshop things had the issue with passing around to. AI does have the issue of input being integrated into other output though. If someone asks for a redhead will it reference redheads various randos inputed into the system. Honestly whats scarier is if someone wants to touch up photos of their family and ai takes that as human images that make sense to use as reference for other porn material requests.
I think the argument will eventually end up in the uncanny valley, like obviously it’s legal to draw a shitty little cartoon of someone engaged in sex but as it becomes closer to photorealism it becomes illegal? Is photoshopping someone’s head onto a porn star illegal? I mainly dont like laws like this because it bring politicians that are ignorant about AI into legislating it on the basis of it being about scandalous sex related stuff, generally to sell more surveillance.
p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
The Guardian: We interviewed a police officer, from an organization most of the public doesn’t trust, and he spouted off his opinion. Since he said the magic word “AI”, we jumped all over it.
I’d like to know how this is actually “accelerating violence against women and girls”. This is on the level of “video games promotes violence and creates serial killers” panic statements of the 80s and 90s.