There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

AOC's Deepfake AI Porn Bill Unanimously Passes the Senate

THE SENATE UNANIMOUSLY passed a bipartisan bill to provide recourse to victims of porn deepfakes — or sexually-explicit, non-consensual images created with artificial intelligence.

The legislation, called the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act — passed in Congress’ upper chamber on Tuesday. The legislation has been led by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in the House.

The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to allow people to sue those who produce, distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography, if they “knew or recklessly disregarded” the fact that the victim did not consent to those images.

xnx ,

Paywall, does it have any shady stuff slipped in like KOSA, SOPA, and the other “protect the children” laws usually have?

NotAnotherLemmyUser ,

You can read the bill directly from here:

www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/…/text

MajinBlayze ,

It’s actually reasonably short. I’m not seeing anything that doesn’t appear directly related to derpfakes

ArbitraryValue ,

distribute, or receive the deepfake pornography

Does this make deepfake pornography more restricted than real sexual images either created or publicly released without consent?

drislands ,

I think so. In a way, it makes sense – a lot of people are of the (shitty) opinion that if you take lewd pictures of yourself, it’s your fault if they’re disseminated. With lewd deepfakes, there’s less opportunity for victim blaming, and therefore wider support.

j4k3 ,
@j4k3@lemmy.world avatar

Things have already been moving towards nobody models. I think this will eventually have the consequence of nobodies becoming the new somebodies as this will result in a lot of very well developed nobodies and move the community into furthering their development instead of the deepfake stuff. You’ll eventually be watching Hollywood quality feature films full of nobodies. There is some malicious potential with deep fakes, but the vast majority are simply people learning the tools. This will alter that learning target and the memes.

aesthelete ,

You’ll eventually be watching Hollywood quality feature films full of nobodies.

With the content on modern streaming services, I’ve been doing this for a while already.

Cosmos7349 ,

That’s where the money is, so yes that’s where the majority of work is. But I do think one of the drivers of this is to help protect more local instances; to create consequences for things like fake revenge porn or distributing deepfakes of classmates/teachers in your school, etc.

j4k3 ,
@j4k3@lemmy.world avatar

This might make the path to generating slightly harder, but it won’t do anything to stop an intelligent person. I haven’t seen a ton of info from people talking about this stuff, but exploring on my own, especially with Stable Diffusion 3, diffusion models are very different than LLM’s. The filtering for safety type alignment is happening external to the model using CLIP, and in the case of SD3, 2× CLIP models and a T5xxl LLM model. The alignment filters are done with these and some trickery. Screwing with these can enable all kinds of capabilities. It is just hard to understand the effect of some tricks, like SD3 swaps an entire layer in the T5 manually. When these mechanisms are defeated, models can generate freely, which essentially means everything is a deepfake. This is open source. So it can never be extinguished. There was a concerted effort to remove the rogue 4chanGPT. It does not have the ChatGPT derived alignment like all other models. The 4chanGPT is still readily available if you know where to look.

This bill just raises the barrier of entry and makes such content less familiar and more powerful in the end. In reality, we would be socially stigmatizing while accepting the new reality IMO. This is like an weapons arms race. You may not like that the enemy created cannons, but banning the casting of cannons within your realm will do nothing to help you in the end. Everyone in the realm may understandably hate cannons, but you really need everyone familiar with casting, making the and everyone in your realm to learn how to deal with them and what to expect. The last thing you need is a lot of ignorant people on a battlefield bunching up together because they do not understand their opponents.

These tools are also weapons. Everyone needs to understand what is truly possible, regardless of how unpleasant that may seem. They can not have a healthy skepticism without familiarity. If they do not have familiarity, they will bunch up on a battlefield facing cannons loaded with grapeshot.

Cosmos7349 ,

So I haven’t dug deeply into the actual legislation, so someone correct me if I’m misinformed… but my understanding is that this isn’t necessarily trying to raise the bar for using the technology as much as much as trying to make clearer legal guidelines for victims to have legal recourse. If we were to relate it to other weapons, it’s like creating the law “it’s illegal to shoot someone with a gun”.

youngalfred ,

Question from an outsider:
Do all bills in the states have to have a fancy acronym?
It looks like the senate is the first step, is that right? Next is the house? It’s the opposite where I am.

Drusas ,

No, but it does help them to garner support, stupidly enough.

Irremarkable ,
@Irremarkable@fedia.io avatar

Not all bills do, but the majority of big ones you hear about do. It's simply a marketing thing

And correct, it'll move to the House, where if it passes it will move to the president's desk. Considering it was unanimous in the Senate, I can't see it having any issues in the House.

Senokir ,

Bills in the US can originate from either the house or the Senate. If it passes one then it goes to the other. If it passes both then it goes to the President to be signed into law.

E: technically there is an exception that bills for raising revenue have to originate in the house but that the Senate can propose or concur with amendments. But for all intents and purposes the vast majority of bills can originate in either body.

finley ,

Ok, fist of all, politicians need to stop it with these acronyms for every law they want to pass. It’s getting ridiculous. Just give the damned law a regular-ass name. It doesn’t have to be all special and catchy-sounding damn.

Second, I’m really surprised to hear of anything passing the senate unanimously, other than a bill expressing the love of silly acronyms. And weak campaign finance laws.

Anyway, I’m glad that at least something is being done to address this, but I just know someone in the House is gonna fuck this up.

catloaf , (edited )

I looked it up: www.congress.gov/bill/…/all-actions

It passed by unanimous voice vote. That is, the president of the Senate (pro tempore, usually Patty Murray) asked for all in favor, and at least one person said “yea” and when asked for all opposed, nobody said “nay”. There wasn’t a roll call vote, so we don’t know how many people (or who) actually voted for it.

Edit: it was probably on C-Span, so you can probably find a recording and get an idea of how many people were there, and how many yeas you hear, if you’re so inclined.

brbposting ,

They do love backronyms

dohpaz42 ,
@dohpaz42@lemmy.world avatar

To improve rights to relief for individuals affected by non-consensual activities involving intimate digital forgeries, and for other purposes.

Congress finds that:

(1) Digital forgeries, often called deepfakes, are synthetic images and videos that look realistic. The technology to create digital forgeries is now ubiquitous and easy to use. Hundreds of apps are available that can quickly generate digital forgeries without the need for any technical expertise.

(2) Digital forgeries can be wholly fictitious but can also manipulate images of real people to depict sexually intimate conduct that did not occur. For example, some digital forgeries will paste the face of an individual onto the body of a real or fictitious individual who is nude or who is engaging in sexual activity. Another example is a photograph of an individual that is manipulated to digitally remove the clothing of the individual so that the person appears to be nude.

“(3) DIGITAL FORGERY.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.

Source

MagicShel ,

Is this just “AI porn bill” because that’s the most common way of doing it these days? I should expect the product is what’s being sanctioned and not the method.

ArbitraryValue ,

I was going to ask the same thing. Is a hand-drawn picture illegal?

youngalfred ,

From the text of the bill:

The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.

imPastaSyndrome ,

So no.

ArbitraryValue , (edited )

Thanks. So photorealistic paintings are still legal, although I suppose they’re not a big problem in practice. It’s still weird that the method of creation matters, although “any other technological means” is pretty broad. Are paintbrushes a technology? Does using a digital camera to photograph a painting count as creating a visual depiction?

I’m vaguely worried about the first-amendment implications.

youngalfred ,

I think it comes down to the last part - indistinguishable by a reasonable person as an authentic visual depiction. That’ll be up to courts to decide, but I think a painting would be pretty obviously not an authentic visual depiction.

CCMan1701A ,

Only if a robot draws it?

Ullallulloo ,
@Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com avatar

No, it criminalizes anything created involving a computer that is realistic-looking.

dohpaz42 ,
@dohpaz42@lemmy.world avatar

This bill targets digital (computer made or altered) forgeries. Not hand-drawn sketches.

dohpaz42 ,
@dohpaz42@lemmy.world avatar

Not just AI…

…any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means….

This probably also covers using MS Paint.

MagicShel ,

Back to my hand drawn stick figure celebrity porn, I suppose.

niucllos ,

As long as it can’t be mistaken for the actual person it moves the stigma from them doing weird things to the artist doing weird things

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •