#DEEPFAKE PORNO

[alexsandercarranza]

El deepfake y el porno de venganza

Taylor Swift es la última víctima de esta práctica violenta, humillante y delictiva denominada porno por venganza que consta en difundir imágenes intimas de una persona por las redes sociales sin su conscentimiento. Sin embargo, en el caso de la cantante las imagenes no son reales, sino generadas por inteligencia artificial (IA). Este tipo de contenido es denominado deepfake, una técnica…

[boringkate]

That Girl was a sitcom that aired from 1966 to 1971 and followed an unmarried woman moving to New York to live alone and pursue her own career (as an actress) (uncommon stuff for tv shows at the time). Every episode began with someone saying the words "That Girl" and then the camera would zoom in on her or a photo of her. I watched it all a few years ago and I still think about it, so now you all have to put up with me telling you about some of the episodes that stood out the most to me.

S01E01 "Don't Just Do Something, Stand There"

A fun introduction to Ann and her new boyfriend Don. It also establishes here in this first episode that That Girl just keeps getting sexually harassed. And not in a "wow it's wild that old timey romcoms acted like behaviour like this was charming" type of way. Dudes are just creeps and she's straight up having a bad time. This will happen in more episodes than I can remember or touch on here.

S02E22 "He and She and He"

Ann (after being told by them that she has to choose between them) dreams about marrying both of the boys who love her. Simultaneously. And their throuple works amazingly. Everyone is happy. It's utopian. Untill the rain starts. Noah (the bible guy with the ark) shows up at her door to reaffirm that she has to choose. He's played by the same actor who plays her father (a conservative old guy and constant source of generation gap based conflict).

S02E24 "Great Guy"

Ann's gal pal Pete (bit of a boy name) (played by Ruth Buzzi who was a regular on Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In and is BTW a bit of a brick) gets her first boyfriend! He's a rough and tumble guy tho and he's always boxing and jogging with Pete instead of treating her like a lady. He even repeatedly calls Pete a "great guy" (he says Ann is more of a "girl girl" and a "pussycat"). Ann (thinking there's a problem) tries to meddle and gives Pete a femme makeover, but it was totally unnecessary and unwanted. They're happy together the way that they are. The episode ends with him saying "you meet a lot of pussycats, but it's only once in your life that you meet a great guy!"

S02E25 "The Detective Story"

Ann is scared because she keeps getting obscene phone calls from an unknown man (presumably threatening to rape her). It is not a misunderstanding. I swear this is an upbeat and breezy sitcom series.

S03E08 "A Muggy Day in Central Park"

It's a crossdressing episode. The cops are crossdressing. Her boyfriend Don is crossdressing (and I think I remember her dad catching Don crossdressing). All to catch some thieves in central park. They show a clip from it (as a flashback) in the series finale too.

S05E03 "I Ain't Got No Body"

A Playboy style porno mag features Ann's face edited onto another woman's body (she never agreed to her photo being used in this way). A precursor to the celebrity photoshops that were themselves precursors to modern deepfakes. Her conservative father sees it at his barbershop (because apparently barbershops stocked porno mags back then).

S05E24 "The Elevated Woman"

At some point the series finale was planned to show Ann and Don's wedding, but Marlo Thomas (the actress who played Ann) felt that would send the wrong message (suggesting that at the end of the day getting married is all girls should aspire to), so instead the episode is about Ann bringing Don to one of her women's lib meetings to show him what the movement is all about. He spends the whole journey telling her how ridiculous she is and saying that women don't know how good they have it. When they finally arrive it turns out that the meeting was cancelled because none of the other women could even convince their boyfriends to come. No growth occurs. There is no character arc. And no better alternatives exist within the confines of heterosexuality. He's sexist and they're engaged.

[fuck-yeah-iheartmedia]

2Pac Fucking Porno Supermodels AI Deepfake

[just-antithings]

i'm a proshipper but i'm against deepfakes. is that not normal?

i'm okay with rpf though. the main difference for me with rpf and deepfakes is that deepfakes use your face and likeness without your consent. if they're good, people can be tricked into believing it's you. it can be really distressing for women to see their faces plastered into pornos when they didn't consent. wasn't there a case with a streamer recently? it's just too easily weaponized. i think deepfakes without someone's explicit consent should be treated like revenge porn or something.

yeah I agree

[captainstressed]

OH. O H!

IS THIS THE IMPLIED JEMILY!? ARE THEIR DEEPFAKE JEMILY PORNOS!?

[scoliosisrick]

AITA for deepfaking you into one of porno rick’s videos ? I fantasise about your handsome personality but your spine reminds me of boned curly slides relating to my childhood trauma. AITA????

NTA BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HAD TO DO THAT WHEN ME AND PORNO RICK LITERALLY HAVE THE SAME FACE WE'RE THE SAME PERSON YOU COULD'VE JUST WATCHED AND PRETENDED IT WAS ME

[mariacallous]

April 10 was a very bad day in the life of celebrity gamer and YouTuber Atrioc (Brandon Ewing). Ewing was broadcasting one of his usual Twitch livestreams when his browser window was accidentally exposed to his audience. During those few moments, viewers were suddenly face-to-face with what appeared to be deepfake porn videos featuring female YouTubers and gamers QTCinderella and Pokimane—colleagues and, to my understanding, Ewing’s friends. Moments later, a quick-witted viewer uploaded a screenshot of the scene to Reddit, and thus the scandal was a fact. 

Deepfakes refer broadly to media doctored by AI, commonly to superimpose a person’s face onto that of, say, an actor in a movie or video clip. But sadly, as reported by Vice journalist Samantha Cole, its primary function has been to create porn starring female celebrities, and perhaps more alarmingly, to visualize sexual fantasies of friends or acquaintances. Given its increasing sophistication and availability, anyone with a picture of your face now can basically turn it into a porno. “We are all fucked,” as Cole concisely puts it. 

For most people, I believe, it is obvious that Ewing committed some kind of misconduct in consuming the fictive yet nonconsensual pornography of his friends. Indeed, the comments on Reddit, and the strong (justified) reactions from the women whose faces were used in the clips, testify to a deep sense of disgust. This is understandable, yet specifying exactly where the crime lies is a surprisingly difficult undertaking. In fact, the task of doing so brings to the fore a philosophical problem that forces us to reconsider not only porn, but the very nature of human imagination. I call it the pervert’s dilemma. 

On the one hand, one may argue that by consuming the material, Ewing was incentivizing its production and dissemination, which, in the end, may harm the reputation and well-being of his fellow female gamers. But I doubt that the verdict in the eyes of the public would have been much softer had he produced the videos by his own hand for personal pleasure. And few people see his failure to close the tab as the main problem. The crime, that is, appears to lie in the very consumption of the deepfakes, not the downstream effects of doing so. Consuming deepfakes is wrong, full stop, irrespective of whether the people “starring” in the clips, or anyone else, find out about it. 

At the same time, we are equally certain that sexual fantasies are morally neutral. Indeed, no one (except perhaps some hard-core Catholics) would have blamed Ewing for creating pornographic pictures of QTCinderella in his mind. But what is the difference, really? Both the fantasy and the deepfake are essentially virtual images produced by previous data input, only one exists in one’s head, the other on a screen. True, the latter can more easily be shared, but if the crime lies in the personal consumption, and not the external effects, this should be irrelevant. Hence the pervert’s dilemma: We think sexual fantasies are fine as long as they are only ever generated and contained in a person’s head, and abhorrent the moment they exist in the brain with the aid of somewhat realistic representation—yet we struggle to identify any morally relevant distinction to justify this assessment.

In the long run, it is likely that this will force us to reevaluate our moral attitudes to both deepfakes and sexual fantasies, at least insofar as we want to maintain consistency in our morality. There are two obvious ways in which this could go.

The first is that we simply begin to accept pornographic deepfakes as a normal way of fantasizing about sex, only that we outsource some of the work that used to happen in the brain to a machine. Considering the massive supply of (sometimes stunningly realistic) pornographic deepfakes and the ease with which they can be customized for one’s own preferences (how long before there is a DALL-E for porn?), this may be a plausible outcome. Knowing that people probably use your photos to create fictive porn may assume the same status as knowing that some people probably think of you (or look at your most recent Instagram selfie) when they masturbate—not a huge deal unless they tell it to your face. At the very least, we can imagine the production of deepfakes assuming the same status as drawing a highly realistic picture of one’s sexual fantasy—weird, but not morally abhorrent. 

The second, and arguably more interesting option, is that we begin to question the moral neutrality of sexual fantasies all together. Thinking about sex was, for a long time, considered deeply sinful in Christian Europe, and has continued to be a stigma for some. It was only after the Enlightenment that whatever goes on in a person’s mind became a “private matter” beyond moral evaluation. But this is definitely an exception, historically speaking. And to some extent, we still moralize over people’s fantasies. For instance, several ethicists (and many other people I reckon), hold that sexual fantasies involving children or brutal violence are morally objectionable. 

But deepfakes may give us reason to go even further, to question dirty thoughts as a general category. Since the advent of the internet, we’ve been forming a new attitude to the moral status of our personal data. Indeed, most Westerners today take it for granted that one should be in full control over information pertaining to one’s person. But wouldn’t this, strictly interpreted, also include data stored in other people’s heads? Wouldn’t it grant me a level of control over other people’s imagination?  The idea is not as wild as it first appears. Consider the Friends episode “The one with a chick and a duck,” in which Ross teases Rachel by picturing her naked against her will, claiming that it is one of the “uh, rights of the ex-boyfriend, huh?” Rachel repeatedly begs him to stop, but Ross merely responds by closing his eyes saying, “Wait, wait, now there’s 100 of you, and I’m the king.” The joke is portrayed as completely uncontroversial, with added audience laughter and all. But now, some two decades later, doesn’t it leave you with a rather bitter taste in your mouth? Indeed, in the age of information, the moral neutrality of the mind seems to be increasingly under siege. Perhaps, in another 20 years, the thought that I can do whatever I want to whomever I want in my head may strike people as morally disgusting too.

We are probably going to see some of both scenarios. There will be calls to moralize over people’s imagination. And people will probably react with less and less shock when learning about the deepfake phenomenon, even when it happens to themselves. Just compare the media coverage of deepfake porn today with that of two years ago. The (legitimate) moral panic that characterized the initial reports has almost completely vanished, despite the galloping technological development that has taken place in the meanwhile. Yet, we will probably not arrive at any moral consensus regarding deepfakes anytime soon. Indeed, it has taken us thousands of years to learn to live with human imagination, and the arrival of deepfakes puts most of those cultural protocols on their heads.

So, which of the options are preferable from the viewpoint of moral philosophy? There is no simple answer. This is in part because both options make sense, or at least have the potential to make sense (otherwise there wouldn’t be any dilemma to begin with). But it is also due to the very nature of moral judgements. Moral truths cannot be stated once and for all. On the contrary, we need to begin every day by asking them anew.

Think of it like this: We know how many electrons are in a hydrogen atom, and so we never need to ask that question again. Questions like “Who should we be?”, “What is a good human life?”, or “Can we blame people for their fantasies?”, on the other hand, are questions that need to be asked again and again by every generation. This is because moral philosophy is an activity that dies the moment we stop doing it. For our moral lifeworlds to make sense, we must consciously reevaluate them, because this activity is always dependent on the social, technological, and cultural contexts in which it takes place. So, the moment we arrive at a definitive answer to the question of which option is preferable from the standpoint of moral philosophy, moral philosophy ceases to be.

Where does all this put us in relation to Ewing, Pokimane, and QTCinderella? There is no doubt that the feelings of shame and humiliation expressed by the targets of the videos are real. And I personally do not find any reason to question the authenticity of the shame and regret expressed by Ewing. But our moral sensemaking of the situation is a different matter. And we should be open to the fact that, in 20 years, we may think very differently about these things. It all depends on how we continue to build and reevaluate our moral lifeworlds. A good first step is taking a step back and reconsidering what exactly it is we find objectionable about deepfakes. 

I think the best place to start is to assess the social context in which deepfakes are used, and compare this to the context around sexual fantasies. Today, it is clear that deepfakes, unlike sexual fantasies, are part of a systemic technological degrading of women that is highly gendered (almost all pornographic deepfakes involve women). And the moral implications of this system are larger than the sum of its parts (the individual acts of consumption). Fantasies, on the other hand, are not gendered—at least we have no reliable evidence of men engaging more with sexual imagination than women do—and while the content of individual fantasies may be misogynist, the category is not so in and of itself. The immoral aspect of Ewing’s actions therefore lies not primarily in the damage it caused to the individuals portrayed, but in the partaking of a technically-supported systemic degrading of women, a system that amounts to something more than the sum of its parts.

While this is the beginning of an answer, it is not the answer. How the technology is used and fitted into our social and cultural protocols will continue to change. What Ewing did wrong cannot be answered once and for all. For tomorrow, we will need to ask again. 

[x-ladymacabre-x]

Holy shit. You're joking, right?

Am I high or does their example vid look like the start of a porno?

Fuck whoever came up with this ad. Fuck this company. Fuck whoever thinks this is even remotely ok.

DON'T USE SOMEONE ELSE'S FACE FOR YOUR OWN SICK ENJOYMENT.

Fuck. Just look at that streamer QTCinderella and what happened to her.

Worst part? She CANNOT get legal help in taking down deepfake porn with HER FACE THAT SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO.

Deepfakes can be funny, but my fucking god don't EVER think it's ok to make PORN with the technology PLEASE.

Whoever greenlit this ad at any point in the process of making it to showing it here... They need to touch some grass and think about their life choices and the messages they're really sending with shit like this.

[radykalny-feminizm]

Dlaczego uważasz, że na logikę może być trochę racji w tym, że jeśli influencerka pokazuje się w bieliźnie, to sama jest sobie winna, jeżeli ktoś stworzy z nią porno deepfake?

Bo podążając najprostszym tokiem myślenia, gdyby nie wrzucała zdjęć w prześwitującej bieliźnie, to nie narażałaby się na przykre tego konsekwencje. Jak wspomniałam, nie jest to feministyczne podejście i go nie podzielam, ale jestem w stanie zrozumieć, że taki wniosek może się nasuwać, gdy na problem patrzy się powierzchownie. Gdyby wydarzyło się tak, że ktoś rzeczywiście stworzyłby fejki z tą dziewczyną, to tak niestety zareagowałaby większość społeczeństwa i mało kto empatyzowałby z ofiarą. Taka jest bezlitosna rzeczywistość.

Moja opinia na temat samego udostępniania seksualizujących zdjęć to osobny temat, który być może kiedyś poruszę.

[korkutkalkan]

Yapay zekâ teknolojileri, son bir yıl içinde tahmin edilemeyen bir hızla gelişti ve popülerleşti. Ancak her teknoloji gibi yapay zekâ da kimilerince iyi kimilerince kötü amaçlarla kullanılıyor. Deepfake porno, belki de bu kötü amaçlı kullanımların en başında geliyor. Üstelik durum öyle vahim hale gelmiş durumdaki artık yalnızca ünlü isimlerin değil, çocuk yaşta sıradan kişilerin dahi deepfake pornoları oluşturuluyor. Şirketler, deepfake pornoya karşı pek çok önlem almaya çalışıyor olsalar da teknoloji bir kez kullanıma sunulduğunda kötü amaçlı kullanımını tamamen yok etmek mümkün olmuyor. Tüm yasaklara, soruşturmalara ve hatta tutuklamalara rağmen birileri deepfake pornografik içerikler üretmeye devam ediyor. Sonuçta tüfeği bir kere icat ettiğinizde "Bunu savaşlarda kullanmayacağız, sadece avlanacağız" demek mümkün değil… Deepfake porno üreten araçlar, uyarı bile yapılmadan Google Ads'ten yasaklanacak! Geçtiğimiz günlerde uygunsuz içerik politikasında güncellemeye giden Google, deepfake pornolara karşı yeni bir önlem duyurdu. 30 Mayıs 2024 itibarıyla "Deepfake pornografi ürettiğini iddia eden, deepfake pornografinin nasıl üretileceğini anlatan, deepfake pornografi hizmetlerini öneren ya da karşılaştıran siteler veya uygulamalar" Google Ads'ten kesin olarak yasaklanacak. Google, konuyla ilgili olarak yapmış olduğu açıklamada "Bu politikayla ilgili ihlalleri çok ciddiye alıyor ve ağır ihlaller olarak nitelendiriyoruz. Bu politikanın ihlal edildiğini tespit edersek bu tespitin ardından Google Ads hesaplarınız önceden uyarı yapılmadan askıya alınır ve platformumuzda yeniden reklam yayınlamanıza izin verilmez." ifadelerini kullanarak söz konusu uygulama ve web sitelerinin tespit edildikten sonra bir daha Google'a reklam veremeyeceğini bildirdi.

[delectablywaywardbeard-blog]

Meta, comitato vigilanza investigherà su deepfake porno dei vip

Verificare se le politiche di Meta e le sue applicazioni pratiche sono efficaci nel contrastare le immagini esplicite generate dall’intelligenza artificiale che riguardano le celebrities, deepfake che hanno colpito in passato anche la popolare cantante Taylor Swift. Lo farà l’Oversight Board, il comitato di controllo indipendente che si esprime sulle controversie delle piattaforme del gruppo di…

[faserh]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez relata lo que sintió al verse en un porno 'deepfake'

http://dlvr.it/T5J6zn

[critchpodcast]

CRITCH® AI TECH MORNING NEWS, 08.02.2024: Hacker erbeuten 24 Millionen Euro mithilfe eines Deepfake-Hologramms, Boston Dynamics lässt Roboter «Atlas» arbeiten und VR-Porno-Verbot für das Apple Vision Pro

Drei neue KI-News aus den vergangenen Tagen in einer schnellen Übersicht als KI News Espresso. Hacker erbeuten 24 Millionen Euro mithilfe eines Deepfake-Hologramms, Boston Dynamics lässt Roboter «Atlas» arbeiten und VR-Porno-Verbot für das Apple Vision Pro: https://www.it-boltwise.de/ai-morning-news-podcast-50-hacker-erbeuten-24-millionen-euro-mithilfe-eines-deepfake-hologramms-boston-dynamics-laesst-roboter-atlas-arbeiten-und-vr-porno-verbot-fuer-das-apple-vision-p.html

CRITCH® AI Tech Podcast von Michael Freitag 🖖🏻

Der deutschsprachige Podcast von Michael Freitag über Künstliche Intelligenz, Technologie und Wirtschaft. Abonnieren Sie unseren Podcast für regelmäßige News, Meinungen und Interviews zu allen Themen rund um Artificial Intelligence und zusammenhängende Themen der KI-Generation. Den KI-Morning-News-Podcast können Sie bei Spotify, Audible, Amazon, Youtube, Stitcher, RTL+, Podcast.de, Radio.de und Apple verfolgen!

Präsentiert von der Critch GmbH (FREITAG® Immobilien) - Ein Unternehmen der FREITAG® Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH aus München. Regelmäßige Treffen und Expertenrunden rund um Künstliche Intelligenz und VR/AR in der Immobilienwirtschaft in unserem Münchener Bürokomplex: https://bit.ly/437IVrz

Anliegen und Anregungen rund um diesen Podcast, richten Sie bitte direkt per eMail an diese Adresse: podcast[at]critch.capital - Podcast-Imprint: https://t1p.de/6cqfv (© 2023 IT BOLTWISE)

Video der Podcast-Folge: Podcastfolge auf YouTube, Podcastfolge auf Dailymotion, Video-Kanäle: KI News Channel auf YouTube, KI News Channel auf Dailymotion, Playlisten: KI News auf YouTube, AI News auf YouTube, KI News auf Dailymotion, AI News auf Dailymotion

[holybridget]

La chanteuse américaine Taylor Swift est victime d'une campagne de propagation d'images pornographiques générées par l'IA sur X. (Radio Canada).

Les deepfakes pornographiques de Taylor Swift relancent le débat sur la régulation du phénomène. (Next ink).

[damace]

Deepfakes von Prominenten entstehen meist auf Telegram mithilfe von automatisierten Bots, bevor sie über die Plattform des Tesla-Chefs in die breitere Öffentlichkeit gelangen. Auch die Propagandalügen und die Videos der Massaker der Hamas zirkulierten erst auf Telegram, in halböffentlichen und teils auch geschlossenen Gruppen - in dem Bereich also, den man "Dark Social" nennt, weil man von außen nicht hineingucken kann - bevor sie auf X gelangten.

Taylor Swift und die Porno-Bilder: Raus aus X - Kultur - SZ.de