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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (51 children)

Maybe I'm just naive of how many protections we're actually granted but shouldn't this already fall under CP/CSAM legislation in nearly every country?

  • source
  • hideshow 51 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (32 children)

    Would it? How do they prove the age of an AI generated image?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (29 children)

    By.... checking the age of the person depicted in the image?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    ...who by definition is AI generated and does not, in fact, exist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    While you're correct, many of these generators are retaining the source image and only generating masked sections, so the person in the image is still themselves with effectively photoshopped nudity, which would still qualify as child pornography. That is an interesting point that you make though

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it's depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make?

    It's relevant in this case because the age they are today is underage. A picture of them 10 years ago is underage. And a picture of anyone made by AI to deep fake them nude is unethical irregardless of age. But it's especially concerning when the goal is to depict underage girls as nude. The age thing specifically could get a little complicated in certain situations ig, but the intent is obvious most of the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm obviously not advocating or defending any particular behavior.

    Legally speaking, why is what age they are today relevant rather than the age they are depicted as in the picture? Like, imagine we have a picture 20 years from now of someone at age 37. It's legally fine until it's revealed it was generated in 2023 when the person in question was 17? If the exact same picture was generated a year later it's fine again?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You mean the real person being depicted? So this wouldn't apply to fake people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago

    If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it's depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (14 children)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (13 children)

    Not a lawyer, but 99% sure it's the same here in Canada as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Australia too. Hentai showing underage people is illegal here. From my understanding it's all a little grey depending on the state and whether the laws are enforced, but if it's about victimisation the law will be pretty clear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Absolutely absurd. Criminalizing drawings is the stupidest thing in the world.

    This case should already be illegal under harassment or similar laws. There's no reason to make drawings illegal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Nah dude, I am perfectly cool with animated depictions of child sexual exploitation being in the same category as regualr child exploitation regardless of the fact that she's actually a 10,000 old midget elf or whatever paper thin explanation they provide not to be considered paedos.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Well that's just absurd and you should rethink your position using logic rather than emotion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (7 children)

    "that's just absurd"

    Well that's an emotional response that includes no specifics or appeals to logic.

    "rethink your position using logic rather than emotion"

    Lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)

    Well that’s an emotional response that includes no specifics or appeals to logic.

    You clearly have no logic so I'm not going to appeal to it. Just a general comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    I am shocked to my core that you would write off an observation as having no logic. Shocked I tell you!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I am perfectly cool with animated depictions of child sexual exploitation being in the same category as regualr child exploitation regardless

    Not an observation. You're saying you don't care about actual victims, children actually being abused. Real, live victims. That's not worse than someone drawing some pictures you don't like?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Wow, you got me. That's totally what I am saying that you had to fabricate a quote that represents the argument you want to have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    First of all I didn't say any of things you're inferring from the quote you posted.

    But yes, I think sexually exploitative imagery of children is just as vile and disgusting as behavior that directly harms children and very indicative of someone who may attempt to harm a child in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It was done by another underage boy, how would the law act in this case?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments