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.

  • Sybil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t know what a reasonable"protection" looks like here: the only thing foresee is 14 year old boys getting felonies, but no one being protected.

    • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Right, there are plenty of reactive measures available but the only proactive measures are either restricting availability of the source photos used or restricting use of the deep fake tools used. Everything beyond that is trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

      • interceder270@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        56
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        At some point, communities and social circles need to be able to moderate themselves.

        Disseminating nudes of peers should be grounds for ostracizing, but it really depends on the quality of people around you.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          That doesn’t work. It’s nothing but an inconvenience to not talk to your neighbors or those around you. They’d just get even worse and make even worse friends online.

          Ostracization doesn’t work. Ever. Period. If they’re bad enough, banishment works. Ostracization is just literally ignoring the problem.

          • interceder270@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            Ostracization doesn’t work. Ever. Period. If they’re bad enough, banishment works. Ostracization is just literally ignoring the problem.

            That’s just wrong. Unless you’re hanging around shitty people, ignoring the bad ones by definition works.

            • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              A lot of social circles are dominated by either shitty people or by people too insecure to take a confronting attitude towards those shitty people.

              • interceder270@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yeah, it does. It’s literally how most friend groups keep undesirables from hanging out with them.

                • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Your friend group is not a sufficient model for all friend groups. They’re a fundamentally different set. All sets are not the same as the other, and taken as a whole it is fundamentally different than any individual group. I’m talking about all groups. Not your group.

                  • interceder270@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    I know. I’ve also said that “if the microcosm is so shitty that it doesn’t ostracize people who disseminate nudes, then the people in it deserve to suffer until they improve [or leave.]”

                    Not everyone is worth hanging around. I know it’s difficult to be alone and most people would rather have shitty ‘friends’ than be alone, but that doesn’t mean they won’t suffer from being around shitty people.

                    I think the answer is to take the power away from shitbags by avoiding them. The more people who do this, the less influence shitbags have.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s not possible to restrict deep fake technology at this point. It’s out there. Accessible to everyone who wants it and has a computer at home.

        • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          And that’s the point I was making, nobody can be “protected” from widely available photos being used on widely available programs. Best we can do is deter but that isn’t a guarantee.

      • cannache@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        Are we seriously going to try and use someone’s photos for dumb shit like this? Cone on, people just want something to wank to or someone to call over to have sex with, who the hell would actually do this?

        • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Well evidently the answer to your last question is " some people". Your point would only make sense if all this was hypothetical

    • ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Even if you don’t want to consider it CSAM, it is, at the very least, sexual harassment. The kids making and circulating these pictures and videos should be facing consequences. And the fear of consequences does offer some degree of protection at least.

      • pohart@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It looks like pretty severe sexual harassment at best. Unfortunately the people I think are most likely to do it are teenagers with poor self control who don’t realize the severity.

        I think if schools can implement appropriate restorative responses and education on the harm done that could be much more effective than decaigan punishments after the fact.

      • Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Should a teenager face consequences for drawing a picture of their classmate naked? What if they do it well? How is this at all different?

        • ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If they distribute the drawing, yes. And the difference is that a drawing is immediately recognisable as a drawing, but an AI generated image or video isn’t necessarily easily recognisable as not being real, so the social consequences for the person depicted can be much worse.

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

        no. the article mentions"protecting" people several times. I don’t see how anyone is protected by the proposed laws.