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.
Well that’s the result when you put words in peoples’ mouths, instead of trying to have a discussion.
If I don’t make any logical steps given the limited words provided in a conversation, then communication becomes impossibly slow. Therefore i feel that I have to make such logical steps. Because text based communication, in the current times, is a bandwidth constraint on the passage of concepts between two human minds. In this case, because of said bandwidth constraint existing between your brain and mine, I made the step and assumed that when you mention making something illegal, that you meant that governments should prohibit the act and do as they (in my understanding) typically do and enforce said prohibition with threat of incarceration. That may have been an oversimplified view of the judicial system, there are other means of enforcement, but I’m only really familiar with the idea of children either being incarcerated or maybe given community service, but I usually (I’m not sure why) given to believe that community service isn’t usually a statutory punishment, but rather a discretionary adjustment that a judge can afford someone. It’s also worth noting that I have concerns about the way in which minorities are disproportionately sentenced, procecuted, and ultimately harmed by the judicial system. Concerns which bias my thoughts when the subject is raised. But I’d like to make clear that I’m using the term bias a bit more strictly, as in every human has a bias against/for basically everything.
So, if I may take another leap, it seems you’re implying that you are specifically talking about me, and not using “you” in the general sense. And I’ll assume you’re actually referring to this current conversation, and claiming that I caused this outcome because I put words in your mouth. Oh, and by that you’re saying (again, these are my assumptions) that I’m claiming that you said something which you never actually said.
So maybe, if you take some logical leaps for the sake of me being able to type this in my life time, you can see that I was not necessarily trying to maliciously misconstrue what it is that you were saying.
And in case it’s not clear, the above is conveyed with mild contempt for you.
It’s actually called a straw man logical fallacy.
You exaggerated what I said and then attacked your exaggeration.
Are you familiar with the fallacy fallacy?
Oh so you’re one of those people who think anyone who points out a logical fallacy should be sent straight to prison.
That’s absolutely stupid, no idea how you can genuinely think that.
It’s obvious this discussion won’t go anywhere with you believing crazy stuff like that, so let’s just leave it here.
How can you expect a conversation to go anywhere when you’re fighting w a stawman. I never made any claims what so ever about fallacy fallacies.
Bingo.
Bongo