this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
630 points (98.0% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Police investigation remains open. The photo of one of the minors included a fly; that is the logo of Clothoff, the application that is presumably being used to create the images, which promotes its services with the slogan: “Undress anybody with our free service!”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aard@kyu.de 249 points 1 year ago (4 children)

This was just a matter of time - and there isn't really that much the affected can do (and in some cases, should do). Shutting down that service is the correct thing - but that'll only buy a short amount of time: Training custom models is trivial nowadays, and both the skill and hardware to do so is in reach of the age group in question.

So in the long term we'll see that shift to images generated at home, by kids often too young to be prosecuted - and you won't be able to stop that unless you start outlawing most of AI image generation tools.

At least in Germany the dealing with child/youth pornography got badly botched by incompetent populists in the government - which would send any of those parents to jail for at least a year, if they take possession of one of those generated pictures. Having it sent to their phone and going to police for a complaint would be sufficient to get prosecution against them started.

There's one blessing coming out of that mess, though: For girls who did take pictures, and had them leaked, saying "they're AI generated" is becoming a plausible way out.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.world 127 points 1 year ago (38 children)

There's one blessing coming out of that mess, though: For girls who did take pictures, and had them leaked, saying "they're AI generated" is becoming a plausible way out.

Indeed, once the AI gets good enough, the value of pictures and videos will plummet to zero.

Ironically, in a sense we will revert back to the era before photography existed. To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on witness testimony.

[–] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 57 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Politics is about to get WILD

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho approves!

Shit's going to get real emotional

[–] Blapoo@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I'd vote for Terry Crews. No lie.

[–] taladar@feddit.de 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on witness testimony.

This is not going to work. Just because images and videos become less reliable that doesn't mean we will forget about the fact that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

You say "forget" like it's not still incredibly common as evidence.

There's lots of data showing that eyewitnesses aren't reliable but that doesn't mean courts actually stopped relying on it. Ai making another form of evidence untrustworthy will result in eyewitnesses taking its place.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Indeed, once the AI gets good enough, the value of pictures and videos will plummet to zero.

This just isn't true. They will still be used to sexualise people, mostly girls and women, against their consent. It's no different from AI-generated child pornography. It does harm even if no 'real' people appear in the images.

Fucking horrible world we're forced to live in. Where's the fucking exit?

[–] GreatGrapeApe@reddthat.com 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is different than AI-generated CSAM because real people are actually being harmed by these deepfake images.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I was replying to someone who was claiming they aren't harmful as long as everyone knows they're fake. Maybe nitpick them, not me?

Reak kids are harmed by AI CSAM normalising a problem they should be seeking help for, not getting off on.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] hansl@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

A bit off topic, but I wonder if the entertainment industry as a whole is going to be completely destroyed by AI when it gets good enough.

I can totally see myself prompting “a movie about love in the style of Star Wars, with Ryan Gosling and Audrey Hepburn as the leads, directed by Alfred Hitchcock, written by Vincent Hugo.” And then what? It’s game over for any content creation.

Curious if I’ll see that kind of power at home (using open source tools) in my lifetime.

[–] Benj1B@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I envisage a world where your browsing Netflix, and based on past preferences some of the title cards are generated on the fly for you. Then based on what you click, the AI engine warms us and generates the film for you in real-time. Essentially indistinguishable from the majority of Hollywood regurgitation.

And because the script is just a series of autogenerated prompts, its like a choose your own adventure book, you can steer the narrative the way you want if you elect to. Otherwise it'll be good enough to keep most monkey brains happy and you won't even be able to tell the difference most of the time.

[–] Rootiest@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Then the real money will be in hipster retro human-generated movies

[–] Gsus4@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

And it will work, because we've grown used to Hollywood being so repetitive.

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I know it's impossible to perfectly predict future technology, but I believe AI will exist alongside traditional filmmaking. You'll NEVER get something with the emotional impact of Up or Schindler's List from an AI. You'll be able to make fun action or fantasy movies though, and like you said, fully customized for the viewer. I imagine it'll be like CGI vs traditional animation now - you only see the latter for passion projects, but for most uses, CGI works well enough.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is already starting to happen for digital illustration. With better models and enough images saved, you can already train a model to replicate the art created by an artist.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Cruxifux@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Holy shit, I never thought of the whole witness testimony aspect. For some reason my mind was just like “well, nothing we see in videos or pictures is real anymore, guess everyone is just gonna devolve into believing whatever confirms their bias and argue endlessly about which pictures are fake and which are real.”

Witness testimony and live political interactions are going to become incredibly important for how our society views “the truth” in world events in the near future. I don’t know if I love or hate that.

[–] hardware26@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not necessarily, solutions can implemented. For example, footage from private security cameras can be sent to trusted establishment (trusted by the court at least) in real time which can be timestamped and stored (maybe not necessarily even stored there, encryption with timestamp may be enough). If source private camera and the network is secure, footage is also secure.

[–] Benj1B@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

Network security is a pretty big ask though - just look at how many unsecured cameras are around now. And once an attacker is in anything generated on that network becomes suspect - how do you know the security camera feed wasn't intercepted, manipulated, or replaced altogether?

[–] Mattol@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago

Maybe there will be cameras as well that sign the pictures they take?

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago

To verify if something is real, we might have to rely on ~~witness testimony~~ flagrancy.

FTFY. Witness has never been that good a means to verify something is real.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] Seudo@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Same goes for any deepfake. People are loosing their shit because we won't know what's real and what's not!.

We should have been teaching critical thinking a generation ago. Sagan was pleading for reform in the 90s. We can start teaching the next generation how to navigate the Information Age. What we can't do is make the world childproof.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 year ago

Yeah, what I see happening is people end up not caring as much because there's going to be so much plausible AI generated crap that any real stuff will be lost in the noise.

[–] Turun@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Quelle für das angesprochene Gesetz bitte. Das will ich im Detail lesen.

[–] aard@kyu.de 8 points 1 year ago

Fang mit dem relativ neuen Fall hier an, und von da solltest du dann genug Info haben um selber zu suchen was die letzten Jahre passiert ist - das ist exakt das wovor damals gewarnt wurde, aber wer den hysterischen Irren die alles was irgendwie mit "Teenager entdecken Sexualitaet" mit dem Strafrecht erschlagen wollen mit durchdachten Argumenten kommt ist dann ja direkt auch ein Paedophiler.

https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/rheinland-pfalz/koblenz/lehrerin-kinderpornografischer-inhalte-konfisziert-deswegen-angeklagt-100.html