Police investigation remains open. The photo of one of the minors included a fly; that is the logo of Clothoff, the application that is presumably being used to create the images, which promotes its services with the slogan: “Undress anybody with our free service!”
I don’t want to band wagon against you, but I do think it’s important that people who agree with your viewpoint have a chance to understand that the situation is a violation of privacy.
The kids’ reputation is, likely, damaged. You have an underage girl who is already dealing with the confusion and hierarchy of high school. Then (A) someone generates semi-accurate photos of what their naked body looks like and (B) distributes it to others.
Issue (A) is bad because it’s essentially CSAM and also because it’s attempting to access a view of someone that the subject likely hasn’t permitted the generator to have access to. This is a privacy violation and the ethics around it are questionable at best.
Issue (B) is that the generator didn’t stop at the violations of issue (A), but has now shared that material with other people who know the subject without the subject’s consent, and likely without her knowledge of the recipients. This means that the subject now has to perpetually wonder if every person they interact with (friends, teachers, other parents, her own parents) have seen lewd pictures of her. Hopefully you can see how this could disturb a young woman.
Now apply a different situation to it. Suppose you took a test at school or at work that shows you as dumb (like, laughably dumb; enough to make you feel subconscious). Even if you don’t think it’s a fair test, this test exists. Now, assume that someone shared this test with your friends, co-workers, and even your parents without you knowing exactly who received it. And instead of everyone saying “it’s just a dumb test — it doesn’t mean anything”, they decide it means something about you. Every hour or so, you walk by someone or interact with someone who chuckles or cracks a joke at your expense. You’re not allowed by your community to move on from this test.
Before your test was released, you could blend in. Now, you’re the person everyone is looking at and judging. Think of that added anxiety on top of everything else you have to deal with.
I appreciate your intentions, but your examples are just not up to the standard needed to treat AI generated nudes any differently than a nude magazine collage with kids’ crushes faces in it.
As uncanny as the nudes might be, they are NOT accurate. People know this and they are going to learn one way or another to adjust their definition of “real”. No character details like moles or their actual skin tone, or anything like this will be accurately portrayed. They have no reason to think “someone has seen their naked body”. Yeah, if someone tells them to worry about it, they will, as any young person will, but why? The bigger the deal we make of it, the worse it is, and the litmus test is, is it bad if we decide to ignore it and teach kids that ai generated nudes have nothing to do with them and that they can safely ignore them, then they do basically zero harm.
How is your test example related to this at all? In the one case, my face and clothed picture is acquired likely with my implied permission from social media and modifications that i did not authorize are added to it and it is then distributed, making me look naked and having no bearing on my person or character (since the ai doesn’t actually know what i look like naked) so no conclusion anyone would draw from it constitutes a disclosure of information about me. The test example constitutes a clear disclosure with provenance to establish the validity of the information, quire a different scenario. It is true that AI chat bots can be jail-broken to release my previous questions which might reveal things about my character that i do not wish to disclose, but that is a different issue and unrelated to these nude generators.
I’m not saying handing these nudes to a kid or blackmailing them is not criminal or harassment, just that the technology and medium should have almost no bearing on how we treat this.
Buddy, I want to let you know that I wrote a big rebuttal and then accidentally canceled my comment and it got erased. In my response I disagreed with your original argument and your rebuttal as well, but that I respected the time it took to share your thoughts. I’m so sad my dumb comment got deleted, lol
Know that I appreciate your lengthy response back to me.
Be well.
That part is not a privacy violation, the same way someone drawing in a canvas their own impression of what a bank vault looks like on the inside does not constitute a trespassing / violation of privacy of the bank. Unless the AI in question used actual nudes of them as a basis, but then we wouldn’t need the extra AI step for this to be a problem, right? Otherwise, I’m rather sure that the actual privacy violation starts at (B).
Ofc, none of that makes it less of a problem, but it does feel to me like it subverts a potential angle for fighting against this.
I appreciate your input and am thankful for your perspective, mate.