7 ms·

Apps That Use AI to Undress Women in Photos Soaring in Use

26 points by foruhar 3y ago

Wojtkie 3y ago
https://archive.is/mD6X2 https://archive.is/mD6X2
crysx 3y ago
Nude
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
You might as well open paint and copy the head elsewhere, it will look shopped, but who cares.
Laaas 3y ago
At least people will be able to claim that their authentic nudes were faked.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  They could do that before by claiming they were photoshopped. The reality is in these situations it seems far more likely that whether the nudes were fake or real claiming they were fake is unlikely to be believed in a social situation where they are publicly leaked.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mkaic 3y ago
    The point isn't that it wasn't possible before, it's that it's 100x faster, easier, and cheaper to fake nudes now than it was previously. I think the reason for why claims of leaked nudes being fake are scoffed at is because making 100% believable fakes takes non-negligible time and effort, and maybe even money. Now, it's just "upload clothes-on image, download clothes-off image 20 seconds later". I think it's not insane to expect this huge shift in accessibility to eventually cause social changes — in the same way that asking for someone's Instagram is normal now, despite Instagram being a relatively new invention, I think it's pretty obvious that a few years from now, nude photos will be assumed by default to be fake rather than real. The social standards are a product of reality, they don't determine reality.
    - meheleventyone 3y ago
      And until your prophecy comes to pass, if it ever does, women are out of luck.
      - mkaic 3y ago
        Agreed. The "transition period" between this technology being invented and society finally adapting to its existence is probably going to be quite rough for a lot of people. My only hope is that society adapts quickly.
        meheleventyone 3y ago
        If it ever does, what's your plan if it doesn't go as you predict? After all I don't think you're from the future coming to reassure us that all this is actually totally fine.
        mkaic 3y ago
        I mean, I'm just making an educated guess based on how society has historically been quite good at changing its norms based on new technology. We didn't have cars, and then we did, and within a generation it became extremely normal and expected for people to drive. Digital cameras were a big deal when they were invented, but for people like me who grew up in the early 2000s, they have never felt that unusual because I've been exposed to videos of myself as a baby for as long as I can remember. When The Avengers was released, it caused a huge amount of hype and hubbub. Now, Marvel produces a dozen superhero movies a year and nobody cares anymore. Do I think that society will transform its views on nude images overnight? No, obviously not. Do I think that every person in society will go with the flow and adopt new assumptions about nude images? Also no. But it seems entirely logical to me to imagine that once the average person notices "hey, I am being inundated with 1000x the number of fake nudes that I used to," they will eventually reach the conclusion that "I should start assuming all nudes are fake by default."
        meheleventyone 3y ago
jjcm 3y ago
Based on where things are at, I feel like there's legitimately no way to stop this. That said, there will be attempts to stop this, and that is something I'm almost more scared about. What laws will be made attempting to stop what likely can't be stopped?
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  There are revenge porn laws. Making fake porn of a person and publicly distributing it could fall under that sort of legislation.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Publicly distributing it is illegal. But creating it currently isn’t. And how do you make a reasonable law against the latter?
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      Same as we have reasonable laws against possession and production of all sorts of illicit goods from meth to CSAM. There's nothing new here that couldn't be done manually before; all that has changed is the speed at which it can be done.
      - dymk 3y ago
        But the creation/use of CSAM and meth harm people other than the person using them. I don't see who's being harmed if a model is used to generate a nude image, and that image isn't distributed.
        concordDance 3y ago
        The production and sale of CSAM and meth harms people, mere possession and consumption harms only the user.
        3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dvh 3y ago
Few days ago I've seen an ad for a realistic looking extra finger, you attach it to one of your other finger so that you have an extra finger sticking out. Then when someone makes real incriminating photo of you you point out that extra finger and say it's ai generated.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  why not just wear googly eyes?
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  That ad was a joke, admitted by it's author. That said, this defense would not save you for a bunch of reasons.
  - ibejoeb 3y ago
    If it's dumb but it works, it's not dumb.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      That's not a very good rebuttal to the claim that it doesn't work.
      - Nevermark 3y ago
        > [...] a bunch of reasons No everyone would classify this as a valid or persuasive rebuttal.
  - mathgradthrow 3y ago
    I'm not ashamed to say that it would have been likely to convince any jury that I'm on.
- rpigab 3y ago
  Nice, personnally I like to wear glasses with glitchy edges.
superkuh 3y ago
This is like complaining that if someone scribbles over a map with blue crayon that they're creating a lake and destroying property. The map is not the territory. And even more than the normal meaning of that in this case the image is really not actually a photo of the person. The complexity of the algorithms involved in making images obscures that simple fact and enables a lot of hyperbolic nonsense and dangerous calls for use of force. There's no one being "undressed" here.
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  Not really, if you sell someone a fake map and pass it off as authentic... you could be liable of fraud. The problem isn't that people are being "undressed" it's that the images are circulated as authentic in order to harm people.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    There's certainly legitimacy to the public distribution aspect you lay out. I imagine there are laws that'd almost cover that already. But if you look around this very HN post you'll see most of the calls are for making generation itself illegal, not distribution. edit: you yourself argue for making generation illegal in a different thread up above.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    I am less and less inclined to believe that people actually believe such images are authentic.
    - notaustinpowers 3y ago
      How about you try it out and send it to your mom and see if she believes it's authentic? Or how about have someone else send it to your boss, work contacts, and coworkers? Whether or not it's authentic, that's irrevocably harmed your relationship with them and there is nothing you can do to reverse that.
      - 3y ago
makeitdouble 3y ago
It's fascinating how much of a gap there is between how this is socially perceived (undressing someone) and what's actually happening (an hallucination of a naked body). I see how this can lead to real problematic situations, but it's also so dumb, I don't think there will be any going back. I have no idea how we'll deal with this, I can't imagine we'll just accept that people have bodies and they don't need to be harrassed over it, but there must be a way and we'll find out.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
Do people have an issue with all fake nudes? For example, there is the sculpture of a nude Brittney Spears giving birth: http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/contemporary/Controversial-Britney-Sculpture.html http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/contemporary/Con... (NSFW: There is nudity). Is there a difference between that and what an AI generates?
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  The term fake implies that it is being passed off as real. No one thinks that the sculpture of Britney giving birth is the real thing and its not being displayed as such.
- falcolas 3y ago
  I believe, as with most actions (and crimes), intent matters. You can take a picture of a clothed teenager and it can be perfectly and socially acceptable. Or it can be potentially illegal, based on intent. The same with images taken of nude babies. Are you creating nude art with the intent of celebrating the human form, or sexual objectification. If it's the latter, do you have consent? Intent matters, and it will probably be the linchpin for the legality for these discussions.
gumballindie 3y ago
A bit like photoshop used to be used in the early days, but with a procedurally generated body instead of a cropped image.
yetanother12345 3y ago
FUD. Women (or any other gender) can not be undressed in a photo. Only IRL. What these software programs do is something else entirely. They refactor the photo into something else which is not the same person in a naked state but an entirely fictional work of "art". It is analogous to posing in front of a painter fully clothed, and the painter applying anatomical knowledge and imagination to add artifacts (or even nudity) that never existed IRL.

26 points by foruhar 3y ago

Wojtkie 3y ago

https://archive.is/mD6X2 https://archive.is/mD6X2

crysx 3y ago

Nude

GoblinSlayer 3y ago

You might as well open paint and copy the head elsewhere, it will look shopped, but who cares.

Laaas 3y ago

At least people will be able to claim that their authentic nudes were faked.

meheleventyone 3y ago
They could do that before by claiming they were photoshopped. The reality is in these situations it seems far more likely that whether the nudes were fake or real claiming they were fake is unlikely to be believed in a social situation where they are publicly leaked.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mkaic 3y ago
  The point isn't that it wasn't possible before, it's that it's 100x faster, easier, and cheaper to fake nudes now than it was previously. I think the reason for why claims of leaked nudes being fake are scoffed at is because making 100% believable fakes takes non-negligible time and effort, and maybe even money. Now, it's just "upload clothes-on image, download clothes-off image 20 seconds later". I think it's not insane to expect this huge shift in accessibility to eventually cause social changes — in the same way that asking for someone's Instagram is normal now, despite Instagram being a relatively new invention, I think it's pretty obvious that a few years from now, nude photos will be assumed by default to be fake rather than real. The social standards are a product of reality, they don't determine reality.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    And until your prophecy comes to pass, if it ever does, women are out of luck.
    - mkaic 3y ago
      Agreed. The "transition period" between this technology being invented and society finally adapting to its existence is probably going to be quite rough for a lot of people. My only hope is that society adapts quickly.
      - meheleventyone 3y ago
        If it ever does, what's your plan if it doesn't go as you predict? After all I don't think you're from the future coming to reassure us that all this is actually totally fine.
        mkaic 3y ago
        I mean, I'm just making an educated guess based on how society has historically been quite good at changing its norms based on new technology. We didn't have cars, and then we did, and within a generation it became extremely normal and expected for people to drive. Digital cameras were a big deal when they were invented, but for people like me who grew up in the early 2000s, they have never felt that unusual because I've been exposed to videos of myself as a baby for as long as I can remember. When The Avengers was released, it caused a huge amount of hype and hubbub. Now, Marvel produces a dozen superhero movies a year and nobody cares anymore. Do I think that society will transform its views on nude images overnight? No, obviously not. Do I think that every person in society will go with the flow and adopt new assumptions about nude images? Also no. But it seems entirely logical to me to imagine that once the average person notices "hey, I am being inundated with 1000x the number of fake nudes that I used to," they will eventually reach the conclusion that "I should start assuming all nudes are fake by default."
        meheleventyone 3y ago

jjcm 3y ago

Based on where things are at, I feel like there's legitimately no way to stop this. That said, there will be attempts to stop this, and that is something I'm almost more scared about. What laws will be made attempting to stop what likely can't be stopped?

meheleventyone 3y ago
There are revenge porn laws. Making fake porn of a person and publicly distributing it could fall under that sort of legislation.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Publicly distributing it is illegal. But creating it currently isn’t. And how do you make a reasonable law against the latter?
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    Same as we have reasonable laws against possession and production of all sorts of illicit goods from meth to CSAM. There's nothing new here that couldn't be done manually before; all that has changed is the speed at which it can be done.
    - dymk 3y ago
      But the creation/use of CSAM and meth harm people other than the person using them. I don't see who's being harmed if a model is used to generate a nude image, and that image isn't distributed.
      - concordDance 3y ago
        The production and sale of CSAM and meth harms people, mere possession and consumption harms only the user.
        3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dvh 3y ago

Few days ago I've seen an ad for a realistic looking extra finger, you attach it to one of your other finger so that you have an extra finger sticking out. Then when someone makes real incriminating photo of you you point out that extra finger and say it's ai generated.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
why not just wear googly eyes?
dist-epoch 3y ago
That ad was a joke, admitted by it's author. That said, this defense would not save you for a bunch of reasons.
- ibejoeb 3y ago
  If it's dumb but it works, it's not dumb.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    That's not a very good rebuttal to the claim that it doesn't work.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      > [...] a bunch of reasons No everyone would classify this as a valid or persuasive rebuttal.
- mathgradthrow 3y ago
  I'm not ashamed to say that it would have been likely to convince any jury that I'm on.
rpigab 3y ago
Nice, personnally I like to wear glasses with glitchy edges.

superkuh 3y ago

This is like complaining that if someone scribbles over a map with blue crayon that they're creating a lake and destroying property. The map is not the territory. And even more than the normal meaning of that in this case the image is really not actually a photo of the person. The complexity of the algorithms involved in making images obscures that simple fact and enables a lot of hyperbolic nonsense and dangerous calls for use of force. There's no one being "undressed" here.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
Not really, if you sell someone a fake map and pass it off as authentic... you could be liable of fraud. The problem isn't that people are being "undressed" it's that the images are circulated as authentic in order to harm people.
- superkuh 3y ago
  There's certainly legitimacy to the public distribution aspect you lay out. I imagine there are laws that'd almost cover that already. But if you look around this very HN post you'll see most of the calls are for making generation itself illegal, not distribution. edit: you yourself argue for making generation illegal in a different thread up above.
- concordDance 3y ago
  I am less and less inclined to believe that people actually believe such images are authentic.
  - notaustinpowers 3y ago
    How about you try it out and send it to your mom and see if she believes it's authentic? Or how about have someone else send it to your boss, work contacts, and coworkers? Whether or not it's authentic, that's irrevocably harmed your relationship with them and there is nothing you can do to reverse that.
    - 3y ago

makeitdouble 3y ago

It's fascinating how much of a gap there is between how this is socially perceived (undressing someone) and what's actually happening (an hallucination of a naked body). I see how this can lead to real problematic situations, but it's also so dumb, I don't think there will be any going back. I have no idea how we'll deal with this, I can't imagine we'll just accept that people have bodies and they don't need to be harrassed over it, but there must be a way and we'll find out.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago

Do people have an issue with all fake nudes? For example, there is the sculpture of a nude Brittney Spears giving birth: http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/contemporary/Controversial-Britney-Sculpture.html http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/contemporary/Con... (NSFW: There is nudity). Is there a difference between that and what an AI generates?

meheleventyone 3y ago
The term fake implies that it is being passed off as real. No one thinks that the sculpture of Britney giving birth is the real thing and its not being displayed as such.
falcolas 3y ago
I believe, as with most actions (and crimes), intent matters. You can take a picture of a clothed teenager and it can be perfectly and socially acceptable. Or it can be potentially illegal, based on intent. The same with images taken of nude babies. Are you creating nude art with the intent of celebrating the human form, or sexual objectification. If it's the latter, do you have consent? Intent matters, and it will probably be the linchpin for the legality for these discussions.

gumballindie 3y ago

A bit like photoshop used to be used in the early days, but with a procedurally generated body instead of a cropped image.

yetanother12345 3y ago

FUD. Women (or any other gender) can not be undressed in a photo. Only IRL. What these software programs do is something else entirely. They refactor the photo into something else which is not the same person in a naked state but an entirely fictional work of "art". It is analogous to posing in front of a painter fully clothed, and the painter applying anatomical knowledge and imagination to add artifacts (or even nudity) that never existed IRL.