A Telegram user who advertises their services on Twitter will create an AI-generated pornographic image of anyone in the world for as little as $10 if users send them pictures of that person. Like many other Telegram communities and users producing nonconsensual AI-generated sexual images, this user creates fake nude images of celebrities, including images of minors in swimsuits, but is particularly notable because it plainly and openly shows one of the most severe harms of generative AI tools: easily creating nonconsensual pornography of ordinary people.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    It absolutely can and must be illegal to do this.

    Given that it can be done in a private context and there is absolutely no way to enforce it without looking into random people’s computer unless they post it online publicly, you’re just asking for a new law to reassure people with no effect. That’s useless.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      No, I’m saying make it so that you go to prison for taking pictures of someone and making pornography of them without their consent. Pretty straightforward. If you’re found doing it, off to rot in prison with you.

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Strange of you to respond to a comment about the fakes being shared in this way…

      Do you have the same prescriptions in relation to someone with a stash of CSAM, and if not, why not?

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        No. Because in one case, someone ran a program on his computer and the output might hurt someone else feelings if they ever find out, and in the other case people/kid were exploited for sexual purpose to begin with and their live torn appart regardless of the diffusion of the stuff?

        How is that a hard concept to understand?

        • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          How can you describe your friends, family, co-workers, peers, making and sharing pornography of you, and say that it comes down to hurt feelings??? It’s taking someone’s personhood, their likeness, their autonomy, their privacy, and reducing them down to a sexual act for which they provide no knowledge or consent. And you think this stays private?? Are you kidding me?? Men have literally been caught making snapchat groups dedicated to sharing their partner’s nudes without their consent. You either have no idea what you’re talking about or you are intentionally downplaying the seriousness of what this is. Like I said in my original comment, people contemplate and attempt suicide when pornographic content is made and shared of them without their knowledge and consent. This is an incredibly serious discussion.

          It is people like you, yes you specifically, that provide the framework by which the sexual abuse of women is justified.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I agree. For any guy here who doesn’t care imagine one of your “friends” made an AI porn of you where you have a micropenis and erection problems. I doubt you would be over the moon about it. Or if that doesn’t work imagine it was someone you love. Maybe you don’t want your grandma’s face in a porn.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          What’s hard to understand is why you skipped the question I asked, and answered a different one instead.

          The creation of the CSAM is unquestionably far more harmful, but I wasn’t talking about the *creation *- I was talking about the possession. The harm of the creation is already done, and whether or not the material exists after that does nothing to undo that harm.

          Again, is your prescription the same as it relates to the possession, not generation of CSAM?