. . . might become an all-the-more frequent statement:
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/meta-response-naked-footage-smart-glasses
In February, Meta contractors in Kenya told Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten that the company required them to review disturbing and sensitive footage captured by its Ray-Ban AI glasses.
Some reported seeing wearers naked or using the toilet. Another saw a man’s wife undressing in their bedroom, after he left the glasses on a table, the joint investigation found. Other footage they reviewed included entire “sex scenes.”
. . .
“Photos and videos are private to users,” a spokesperson said. “Humans review AI content to improve product performance, for which we get clear user consent.”
. . .
The allegations shine a light on the dark underbelly of the AI industry, and tech more broadly: how much of it is driven by underpaid workers overseas, and how much data it reviews behind the scenes. At Sama, the workers were performing data annotation, a process that involves manually labelling images, videos, and other content so an AI model knows what it’s looking at during training. For the Ray-Ban glasses, this is supposed to help their built-in AI function more seamlessly.
They’ll also add to the perception that Meta’s AI wearables are “pervert glasses,” allowing users to discreetly record people without their consent or knowledge. While the Ray-Bans have a light to indicate when they’re recording, these can reportedly be disabled, and many have discovered tricks to cover them. Sama workers reported that some of the users appeared unaware that their glasses were recording.
Kenyan or Swedish sex scenes? Asking for an unemployed friend.
Meta should have just told them they were AI-generated scenes. Fake.
Speaking of which, what’s going to happen to the porn industry when AI gets so good you can’t tell the difference? Furthermore, can porn Addicts get off knowing that it’s AI generated?
Serious philosophical questions…
Also, is it illegal for pedophiles to have AI-generated fake child pornography?
we need the board lawyers to chime in on this.
They are empirical questions.Meta should have just told them they were AI-generated scenes. Fake.
Speaking of which, what’s going to happen to the porn industry when AI gets so good you can’t tell the difference? Furthermore, can porn Addicts get off knowing that it’s AI generated?
Serious philosophical questions…
First, the porn industry will become AI generated. Second, a resounding yes, or so I've been told by @hoot . It'll pretty much be the end of civilization as we know it.
Yes, it is illegal for anyone to knowingly possess it, not just pedophiles.Also, is it illegal for pedophiles to have AI-generated fake child pornography?
we need the board lawyers to chime in on this.
I'm not sure if a First Amendment challenge is moot. Might have to argue over serious artistic value.
@bradstevens why anyone would trust anything Meta puts out is beyond me. It's platform is toxic and has been for years.
Yes, it is illegal for anyone to knowingly possess it, not just pedophiles.Also, is it illegal for pedophiles to have AI-generated fake child pornography?
we need the board lawyers to chime in on this.
I'm not sure if a First Amendment challenge is moot. Might have to argue over serious artistic value.
The premise is that consuming child porn is harmful to the children involved, and therefore any First Amendment protections are trumped. If no children are involved, how can there be a crime?
and that is precisely my questionYes, it is illegal for anyone to knowingly possess it, not just pedophiles.Also, is it illegal for pedophiles to have AI-generated fake child pornography?
we need the board lawyers to chime in on this.
I'm not sure if a First Amendment challenge is moot. Might have to argue over serious artistic value.
The premise is that consuming child porn is harmful to the children involved, and therefore any First Amendment protections are trumped. If no children are involved, how can there be a crime?
How is it different than possessing a copy of Lolita by Nabokov?
Something you need to understand is that Ai video / images are typically created by inputting 100s of images into a database first. AI are taking all of those images and learning about them (common features) to generate a new image. So you put in pictures of 100 girls and ask it to generate an image of a new girl, it is still going to base that new image on bits and parts of the database it has to work from (the nose of girl 1, the lips of girl 2, etc).
So while it is possible to create an Ai image of a child that a pedophile can get their rocks off on in a somewhat "more innocent" fashion, at the end of the day, it's still based off of real people, so the moral implications have not gone away. Thus, still illegal.
Something you need to understand is that Ai video / images are typically created by inputting 100s of images into a database first. AI are taking all of those images and learning about them (common features) to generate a new image. So you put in pictures of 100 girls and ask it to generate an image of a new girl, it is still going to base that new image on bits and parts of the database it has to work from (the nose of girl 1, the lips of girl 2, etc).
So while it is possible to create an Ai image of a child that a pedophile can get their rocks off on in a somewhat "more innocent" fashion, at the end of the day, it's still based off of real people, so the moral implications have not gone away. Thus, still illegal.
That's a fair take. Makes sense. I think it's a reach.
”This video is generated by AI and does represent any real person, living or dead”?Something you need to understand is that Ai video / images are typically created by inputting 100s of images into a database first. AI are taking all of those images and learning about them (common features) to generate a new image. So you put in pictures of 100 girls and ask it to generate an image of a new girl, it is still going to base that new image on bits and parts of the database it has to work from (the nose of girl 1, the lips of girl 2, etc).
So while it is possible to create an Ai image of a child that a pedophile can get their rocks off on in a somewhat "more innocent" fashion, at the end of the day, it's still based off of real people, so the moral implications have not gone away. Thus, still illegal.
That's a fair take. Makes sense. I think it's a reach.
Movies and TV attempt to portray life as realistically as possible and so have to provide disclaimers.
As for the moral aspect, on the privacy of one’s own computer?
Interesting debate. Glad I’m not a perv.
Serious artistic value. No actual images.and that is precisely my questionYes, it is illegal for anyone to knowingly possess it, not just pedophiles.Also, is it illegal for pedophiles to have AI-generated fake child pornography?
we need the board lawyers to chime in on this.
I'm not sure if a First Amendment challenge is moot. Might have to argue over serious artistic value.
The premise is that consuming child porn is harmful to the children involved, and therefore any First Amendment protections are trumped. If no children are involved, how can there be a crime?
How is it different than possessing a copy of Lolita by Nabokov?
They are empirical questions.Meta should have just told them they were AI-generated scenes. Fake.
Speaking of which, what’s going to happen to the porn industry when AI gets so good you can’t tell the difference? Furthermore, can porn Addicts get off knowing that it’s AI generated?
Serious philosophical questions…
First, the porn industry will become AI generated. Second, a resounding yes, or so I've been told by @hoot . It'll pretty much be the end of civilization as we know it.
BradStevens the porn and end of civilization discussion brings up my visit to Italy with my commanding officer when I was twenty three years of age.
I remarked about how sexy the young Italian females were. Colonel Judy informed me that Italian women did not age well. Was the wise Colonel right about this?
Recent research tells me the Colonel may be wrong.
Proof of this could come with AI showing nude photos of a typical Italian female from age 8 to 60. Now would these photos be porn, or a scientific portrayal of an Italian female body as it ages?
As to the end of civilization for Italian females as it relates to their beauty as they age. Would seem to me the AI aging portrayal would put an end to Colonel Judy's mistaken theory about the aging of Italian women.
Hooray for AI.
They are empirical questions.Meta should have just told them they were AI-generated scenes. Fake.
Speaking of which, what’s going to happen to the porn industry when AI gets so good you can’t tell the difference? Furthermore, can porn Addicts get off knowing that it’s AI generated?
Serious philosophical questions…
First, the porn industry will become AI generated. Second, a resounding yes, or so I've been told by @hoot . It'll pretty much be the end of civilization as we know it.
BradStevens the porn and end of civilization discussion brings up my visit to Italy with my commanding officer when I was twenty three years of age.
I remarked about how sexy the young Italian females were. Colonel Judy informed me that Italian women did not age well. Was the wise Colonel right about this?
Recent research tells me the Colonel may be wrong.
Proof of this could come with AI showing nude photos of a typical Italian female from age 8 to 60. Now would these photos be porn, or a scientific portrayal of an Italian female body as it ages?
As to the end of civilization for Italian females as it relates to their beauty as they age. Would seem to me the AI aging portrayal would put an end to Colonel Judy's mistaken theory about the aging of Italian women.
Hooray for AI.
