Why specifically? The child actors aren’t harmed, nor is anyone else as far as I can see. So what exactly makes this worse than say AI art or a painting?
It's not explicitly stated, but also isn't ruled out that the nude bodies they were real photos of real children in which case, the deepfake element would be irrelevant.
Sure, that’s a reasonable reaction assuming it applies. But people seem to have a strong reaction even if it didn’t, which is more what I was trying to understand.
I could see using adult models for source material as a sign of mental illness and proactively institutionalizing someone for that is on the table, but prison IMO implies some kind of harm.
> But people seem to have a strong reaction even if it didn’t, which is more what I was trying to understand.
There's some images and concepts where humans generally have a strong disgust reflex; I'm not sure how much any of these various reflexes are innate vs. learned, but in either case overcoming them is likely to also have severe negative consequences.
One of the common tropes I've seen in every debate about human sexual desires and what should be forbidden, there's always someone who treats it as a slippery slope. I don't think they've been right, but I can see the possibilities for how they might be.
But we may have to be, despite those possibilities.
Unfortunately, given how easy it now is to fake such material and how this is absolutely going to impact elections going forwards because people are going to use the tech to create fake images of politicians.
20-odd years ago I saw a Photoshopped picture where someone had put the faces of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden onto a gay porn photo, I think it was to protest the American invasion of Afghanistan; more recently, we've already had a newsworthy generated image of Trump resisting arrest, and I'd be shocked if nobody's yet put him into an image with Stormy Daniels.
There's a possibly apocryphal but widely believed quote from Trump, "If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her", and at the (supposed) time of the quote Ivanka was 13 — and remember, this is believed because, to a first approximation, someone put some text on a photo and tweeted it — someone is almost certainly going to use AI to generate that scene.
As Trump has (despite the legal battles which needed a much higher standard for their evidence even to get started) a reasonable chance of winning the next election, there's a real chance of people seeing that generated image, taking it seriously, and repeating the Jan 6 2020 attempt to prevent the transfer of power. Only this time, without needing a charismatic leader to lead them.
And because that Ivanka quote isn't well-evidenced yet is widely believed, that's also a problem that almost every democracy will have to face forever, no matter what you think of Trump himself.
> There's a possibly apocryphal but widely believed quote from Trump, "If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her"
Not even slightly apocryphal. You can see the clip on YouTube, e.g. [1] But she was 25 at the time, not 13.
« When Trump was the star of the reality TV show “The Apprentice,” he appeared on the ABC talk show “The View” with his daughter in 2006 and said, “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her. Isn’t that terrible? How terrible? Is that terrible?” »
> And because that Ivanka quote isn't well-evidenced
I've heard a different quote that was allegedly made when she was 13 (I guess taking an proven quote and transposing the age to another unproven quote is an easy step, possibly even accidentally) but Snopes currently rates that as "unproven".
(Given the things he's actually on record as saying, it wouldn't surprise me though.)
By that argument, deep fake porn shouldn’t exist at all. But it does, so clearly that’s not the way these people see the world. Some faces are simply “better” than others, at least in so far as those with perverted pornographic desires are concerned.
To amend my prior comment, the law says that the face actors in fact are harmed as well, reputationally. Fair enough; I’m not here to play “defend the pedo”.
It exists because face is what gets visibly aged on people even if the body isn't easily distinguishable from children. Why is it called "child sexual abuse material" if no child was abused in its creation?
Ad reputational damage - OK, I agree if they distribute it, that's fair. But if they don't distribute and the police finds it only after they take their hard drives?
