- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
Instagram is profiting from several ads that invite people to create nonconsensual nude images with AI image generation apps, once again showing that some of the most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet, but are actively promoted to users by social media companies unable or unwilling to enforce their policies about who can buy ads on their platforms.
While parent company Meta’s Ad Library, which archives ads on its platforms, who paid for them, and where and when they were posted, shows that the company has taken down several of these ads previously, many ads that explicitly invited users to create nudes and some ad buyers were up until I reached out to Meta for comment. Some of these ads were for the best known nonconsensual “undress” or “nudify” services on the internet.
This is such a dumb argument. Nobody is claiming that the AI can show you what’s actually beneath a person’s clothes. The nudes being fake doesn’t resolve the ethical issue of creating porn of people who never agreed to it.
The people doing mental gymnastics about this stuff are just telling on themselves. Don’t make fake porn of real people, and if you do, be prepared to be rightfully treated as a sexual predator if anyone finds out.
Look at their next comment, that’s literally what they think is happening.
And it should resolve it. The idea of someone picturing us in their head, photoshopping us, or drawing us, can be incredibly creepy, yeah, but nobody has ever tried to make it illegal.
Also is this an argument of ethics or legality? They’re not inherently the same. Like, I think it’s unethical to insult random people in the street, but it sure as hell shouldn’t be illegal.
As for your last part, it’s funny because I’ve literally never done this. Ironically enough, I find it too creepy to even try, but in the same way that photoshopping or drawing someone nude would be. Incredibly creepy, but not illegal.
You seem to have reading comprehension issues. They said that this could be done to their body, which is 100% true.
Any picture of anyone can be processed with an AI, and “nudified”. Yes, the AI generated portions of the image are fake, and likely won’t resemble the person’s actual body under their clothing. Results are probably more accurate for photos of people in swimsuits vs more conservative outfits but…
…that doesn’t matter. If you’re modifying a picture of a real person to make them nude, even without AI, it amounts to sexually violating the person in the original image. Even if you’re just photoshopping their face into porn, that’s fucking vile and I see no reason there shouldn’t be real consequences for it - especially if these images are shared with others.
Nobody defends this shit like you are unless they are doing it themselves. With that said, reevaluate yourself and stop sexually violating women.
It sounded like they thought the AI would literally reveal their body tho, which simply isn’t true. They clarified what they meant in a newer comment tho, so that’s my fault for misunderstanding.
Ultimately I would agree that sharing these images shouldn’t be legal, just as afaik it’s not legal to share real nudes without the person’s explicit consent. I imagine it would fall into the same vein as revenge porn.
But imo it shouldn’t be illegal to make them. It’s really no different than what people have been doing for thousands of years, whether that’s simply imaging the person, drawing them, or more recently, photoshopping them.
Is it creepy as fuck? Absolutely, but not everything I find gross should be outlawed. Take a second to think about how we would go about outlawing the use of photoshopped nudes, for example, and you’ll see the dark violating path we would need to go down to make that enforceable.
Regardless, it’s funny but I actually don’t do any of this shit, I ironically find it too weird, I don’t think I’d be able to look at myself in the mirror afterwards lol. But I still defend the fact that it shouldn’t be illegal. I defend the legality of lots of stuff that I don’t personally do.
Edit: Sorry my last paragraph is effectively the same as my prior explanation. I didn’t realize you were the one I’d already explained this to, so I was just reiterating. But again no, I literally don’t use any of this shit. The most I’ve ever done is use those prompt websites to make some bizarre psychedelic art, or see what typing in my username would result in.
They didn’t say anything like that. You can go back and re-read the thread yourself. If you were wrong, own up to it, but absolutely fuck off with this “well, ackshually” troll response.
If you view sexual assault as a form of free speech, expect to be treated for the kind of person you’re telling everyone that you are.
I literally did own up to it, I said it was my fault for misunderstanding.
Regardless, nobody is viewing assault as free speech. Look up the definition of a strawman.
I hope if you choose to respond that you’ll take some time to calm down. I don’t mean to be invalidating, so I’m sorry if it comes across that way, but this comment was pretty rough.
Even so though, I don’t mean to say that your anger is unwarranted, I mean hell if I thought someone was advocating for assault to be a protected speech, and then shrugging off blame when proven wrong about something, I’d be pissed off too. Especially with a topic as sensitive as this. But I hope you can recognize that I’m not at all doing that, or at the very least that it’s not my intention. Like I said, I owned up to my mistake right away once I realized that I’d misunderstood.