A mother and daughter are advocating for better protections for victims after AI-generated nude images of the teen and others were circulating.

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.

      • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        21·
        1 year ago

        This is so tedious. If you have a point, then make it. Stop asking inane questions.

        So do people in images that are purely AI generated exist, or not?

        This question is based on a false premise, as though the technology used to create an image is relevant to what it depicts.

        • If michaelangelo paints the likeness of a model, does the model in the image exist?
        • if a child draws a stick figure likeness of their dad, does the dad in the image exist?
        • if you take a photo on your phone, and it uses complex mathematical algorithms to compress and later render the image, do people in those images exist?
        • if you run a filter over that image on your phone, does that person still exist ?

        Of course in all cases, for all intents and purposes the depicted person exists. You can argue that a painting is just an arrangement of pigments on canvas and you would be correct, but to everyone else its still a picture of a specific person.

        If you use a computer to generate an image that “looks like” a school-mate doing whatever thing, then an argument that the person in the picture does not exist because the image was generated by AI is moot, because for all intent’s and purposes it’s a “picture of” that school mate doing that thing.

          • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            For the love of everything holy. This is not how grown ups discuss things. Make your point and stop asking dumb questions.

            As you well know, no one is directly harmed by the simple act of someone viewing AI generated porn which does not depict a real person.

            That said, the law in my jurisdiction does not discern between real or not. If it’s an image (even hentai) depicting sexual abuse against a minor then it’s CSAM. How do you know if the depicted person is a minor? That’s a question for a jury. I’m sure there are arguments against this position, but it’s merits are obvious. You don’t need to quibble over whether an image depicts a real person or not, if it’s CSAM then it’s illegal.