But it means that it was trained on people and on pizza. If it can produce CSAM, it means it had access to pictures of naked minors. Even if it wasn't in a sexual context.
Minors are people. It knows what clothed people of all ages look like. It also knows what naked adults look like. The whole point of AI is that it can fill in the gaps and create something it wasn't trained on. Naked + child is just a simple equation for it to solve
The whole point of those generative models that they are very good at blending different styles and concepts together to create coherent images. They're also really good at editing images to add or remove entire objects.
I think @deathbird meant was the AI could be trained on what sex is and what children are at different points. Then a user request could put those two concepts together.
But as the replies I got show, there were multiple ways this could have got accomplished. All I know is AI needs to go to jail.
Likely yes, and even commercial models have an issue with CSAM leaking into their datasets. The scummiest of all of them likelyget one offline model, then add their collection of CSAM to it.
Looking at the logs if my Stable horde worker, more then half of requests made were to generate porn. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot regardless of if the filter worked as intended.
Damn, they really overfit their music models. With image generation and text prediction it's very hard to prove a direct connection, but with four or five of those songs it's unmistakable that the original songs were used to generate the music output
I wonder what the effect will be of fixing the models' overfitting. I'm guessing it'll generate worse music, or they would've done so already.
Quite sad that it took the music industry to notice before any lawsuits with a chance of succeeding got off the ground.
Sure, they take years to ban things like r/jailbait and all those fascist subs, but people with rooms to jerk off in a step too far.
I have zero interest one way or another in people who have the resources to devote a space to this, or the ego to want to share that space. It's a completely foreign interest to me. But to ban people on the internet for being sexual in a way you don't understand is equally beyond me.
Hell yeah! Nothing good comes from their new model, nor the advertiser-friendly focus of SD3. They were good for pushing the open-source ecosystem forward, but clearly their Capitalist masters have come calling, and they're enshittifying.
On the flip side, if the genders were changed in this situation and the guy only wanted the woman because of superficial reasons like she was attractive or popular, how many people would be saying "he got what he deserves"
This is definitely one of those double standard situations. While we shouldn't be victim blaming, I think there's something to be said for calling out people who are willing to throw away an existing relationship or form a new relationship just because an "influencer" came up to them and they thought they were rich. And I think that's what the poster you are responding to was getting at.
I think it's completely fair to have an honest conversation about what could cause someone to be enticed by a large number of followers, but I don't think that OP was making space for that conversation. It came off as victim blaming because there was no attempt at nuance or unpacking the fact that these women were targeted by a conman and that we really shouldn't be blaming them at all.
Again, can we please not victim blame? Calling this a failure, saying that they must be "so shallow" to fall for a fame scam is analogous to saying "she was asking for it because of the way she was dressed" to a rape victim. Being a human is complicated and there are many reasons a victim can fall prey to a scam. It's not as one dimensional as you're painting it and regardless of how shallow a person is, no one deserves to be taken advantage of. The focus of discussion here should not be the victim, but rather the perpetrator and the fact that they are out to take advantage of others. That's abhorrent behavior and we should keep the focus squarely on them.
I don't want to blame just the victim, I want to blame everyone, society included.
Also I don't think that someone's behavior choice is comparable to their clothing choice, and I see much more than a single problem in this whole situation. It also isn't any inherent weakness or any sort of coercion that are getting exploited, everyone is free to leave at any moment.
no one deserves to be taken advantage of
Agreed.
The problem is that everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone, they just differ in what they want:
one wants money
another wants sex
last one wants clout and money
We can agree that the main instigator is the seller, taking advantage of the others, but that doesn't mean the others are completely innocent; they can't be, or the whole scheme wouldn't be possible in the first place.
(in a sane world, I'd expect the only one to get scammed would be the buyer... but I know that groupies are a real thing)
I think we should ask why each one of them wants what they want, and why are they ready to jump at the opportunity of taking advantage of someone else in order to get it.
Then we could ask what could be done to prevent the whole situation from being possible, at every level.
PS: in some jurisdictions, there is a "funny" situation where lying to get sex is a felony up to certain age... but once it's between "consenting adults", lying to get sex is perfectly fine! 😒 We could also take a look at that, how is it possible to give consent while being lied to.
I don’t think that someone’s behavior choice is comparable to their clothing choice
I completely agree, but victim blaming across choices and especially towards women and POC individuals is part of the reason we have really shitty reporting of fraudsters. Creating an environment which discourages them from speaking up is harmful to society as a whole.
everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone
We don't know this, and we shouldn't assume this of the victim. I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, but focusing on talking about the victim here when there are actors which are clearly out to harm or take advantage of others is harmful framing. If this is a discussion you wish to have, I personally believe the appropriate framing is necessary - we must acknowledge the existing structure of power and how it silences certain people and also blames them before talking about potentially problematic behavior. But even then, it's kind of jumping to conclusions about the victim here and I'm not so certain it's a discussion that should even be entertained.
victim blaming across choices and especially towards women and POC individuals
I don't know about the US, here in Spain the love scams, and fame scams, are a thing across all genders and orientations, with low reporting of scams in general being attributed mainly to shame of the victims for having fallen for a scam.
People like to think they're smarter than most other people, and the more sure they are of that, the easier they are to fool. I think it's no wonder they don't want to acknowledge it afterwards.
everyone in this case is trying to take advantage of someone
We don't know this, and we shouldn't assume this of the victim.
I don't see how else it could work... but I'm open to hearing alternatives?
we must acknowledge the existing structure of power and how it silences certain people and also blames them
Fair.
A relevant aspect I can think of, is the part about it being fine to lie to have sex between "consenting" adults. How can there be consent, when one or both parties are misleading the other? Sounds like an officially codified permission to abuse.
I don't get what people see in fame or clout, it looks like lying and argument of authority to me. The fact that anyone would pursue or get influenced by either, seems to me like ingrained predisposition to getting abused (by authority figures). Not sure how much of that is inherent, and how much social.
A clearly perverse incentive in the whole scheme, is money... but that's kind of unavoidable in any money based society.
The elephant in the room, is sex itself: how can it, on one side, make someone pay and lie for it, and on the other side be used as a bargaining chip. Is it a purely hormonal catalyst for the whole scheme, or a proxy for a power play?
For almost 20 years, Google's phones have been pretty friendly to ROM flashing. I suspect that so long as Apple and Samsung have such a large market share, that will continue.
At least with Google's Pixel phones you can flash your own OS like Graphene and totally de-Google it. I just hate that they don't support SD cards, that's absolute bullshit/greed on Google's part. Same with Apple.
If it can be done cheaply, or at least in the expected price ranges for coffee hardware, it could be good for people that make a business out of it. Or it could be good for big coffee shop to pump out more and charge more too with fancy marketing.
Ain't no way vibrating beens is gonna be sued for. You may have to something different but the idea of vibrating bean can't be considered THAT novel, right?
This seems to be sleazy conmen faking interactions with women to convince wannabe pick-up artists to pay for their app. It's like some new circle of Hell.
Really the only trick they missed was turning it into a pyramid scheme but that might sneak in if you use the app a lot, although imagine the "success rate" on this is abysmal and a lot of users will drop out quickly.
I love how our government allows foreign corporations abuse their citizens. Samsung is not the only one. Hyundai, Mercedes, Volkswagen.... Etc. They all fuck Americans sideways and our government is just watching.
generative AI makes it very easy for anyone to flood the internet with generated text, audio, images, and videos.
And? There's already way too much data online to read or watch all of it. We could just move to a "watermark" system where everyone takes credit for their contributions. Things without watermarks could just be dismissed, since they have as much authority as an anonymous comment.
AIs learn from existing images, they could just as well learn to reproduce a tattoo and link the pattern to a person's name. Recreating it from different angles, would require more training data, but ultimately would get there.
For public ones, depending on what people started getting, it'd really strain the AIs. You could go in like 1 or two ways, probably different people getting both.
Something very uniform but still unique, like a QR code kind of deal, AIs would hallucinate the crap out of that. Or abstractions, like people do to change the way the shape of their face to combat facial recognition.
For private ones, just don't ever get it photographed, any image showing that area without it would be probably fake.
Why would anyone pay for the service? Having a "name" is free, and that dumb worldcoin only works for people. It can't work for governments or businesses.
ActivityPub is actually a good way to authenticate things. If an organization vouches for something they can post it on their server and it can be viewed elsewhere.
ActivityPub is actually a good way to authenticate things. If an organization vouches for something they can post it on their server and it can be viewed elsewhere.
AP has some pretty big issues when it comes to moving servers, expiring and re-purchased domain names, and other such edge cases. Servers either blindly accept new keys after a certain time, or are vulnerable to enabling key ransoming after hacks (the reason HKPK went nowhere).
I think the idea of WorldCoin is to have a "wallet" linked to a single physical person, then you can sign any work with your key, that you got by proving you are a real person.
IMHO, the coin part is just a hype element to get people to sign up for the password part.
As for ActivityPub, I don't see how it helps with anything. An organization vouching for something, can already post it on their web, or if they want a distributed system, post it on IPFS.
Mid journey and the like have already been caught creating shutterstock watermarks in images. Future models might be able to fake specific watermarks well.
Not like that. A server name that can be authenticated. Like when you receive an email from your bank (in the metadata), you know it's legitimate. Each organization can set up their own server to host things they vouch for. With ActivityPub it can be viewed elsewhere with the guarantee that it's from a trusted source.
Sure, but so do a lot of other things that aren't as costly. If NFTs were the first secure way to authenticate things online we wouldn't have had online banking until very recently
True but trust is hard to establish in decentralized platforms like the fediverse. As far as I’m aware the only decentralized banking is unfortunately cryptocurrency.
We could just move to a "watermark" system where everyone takes credit for their contributions.
North Korea actually has this embedded in their government Linux distro and it works well as long as everyone who opens the file runs a supported OS. Not for AI, but to track who wrote what unpleasant documents, but still, it proves the idea can work.
On the other hand, how do you determine trust? I can generate a million plausible names and digital addresses on my computer. Half the images I see online are screenshots or screen recordings already (because "save as" isn't available on "modern" websites).
In theory, we can solve this by simply having digital stuff be signed, but setting up a web of trust will be difficult. Especially since most of the internet is semi-anonymous.
Funnily enough, the Fediverse already signs most data, so this scheme is already active unintentionally here on Lemmy! But for all I know, you're not really "Kevon Looney" and just a fake from another server.
404media.co
Top