- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Teen boys use AI to make fake nudes of classmates, sparking police probe::Parents told the high school “believed” the deepfake nudes were deleted.
Teen boys use AI to make fake nudes of classmates, sparking police probe::Parents told the high school “believed” the deepfake nudes were deleted.
There might be a misunderstanding. I understand the original post is trying to say that it was obvious problems like this will occur with the introduction of AI generated images but it also implies an easy or obvious solution. But there isn’t one, so what is the point of pointing this out.
I don’t read it as saying that there may be a simple solution? And I don’t know how to attack the problem other that maybe a posable threat of distribution of material that could be classed as CSAM
Maybe an analogy would help clear this whole thread up. Let’s say you wake up tomorrow and you see headlines of scientists discovering a meteor that will hit earth in the next 48 hours. Then a couple of days later you read a meteor hit earth causing X deaths and Y billions of dollars in damages. Then you go to the comment section and read “There is absolutely no way anyone could have possibly seen this coming.” So then you’re thinking to yourself does this comment seem a bit weird or am I just dumb for missing something. So you ask “could this have been prevented somehow” (subtext you don’t really see anything obvious) but then you get confirmation it could not have been prevented so now you’re just like “wait then wtf was the original comment saying”.
And that is how I feel right now lmao.
It’s sarcasm. “No one could have seen this coming” is calling out the article for being obvious. More like an article about how the meteor has caused other issues: “NYC caught-off guard by unprecedented tsunami shortly after a meteor hit the Atlantic Ocean” “Miami officials launch study to explain recent floods after similar events plague cities across the coast”