Sexually explicit AI-generated images of Taylor Swift have been circulating on X (formerly Twitter) over the last day in the latest example of the proliferation of AI-generated fake pornography and the challenge of stopping it from spreading.

X’s policies regarding synthetic and manipulated media and nonconsensual nudity both explicitly ban this kind of content from being hosted on the platform.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Wow this is going to be interesting from multiple fronts for me especially.

    First, I’m a huge swiftie - and Taylor is probably not going to take this lightly. Who she’s going to target will be a more interesting question. (Shameless plug for !taylorswift@poptalk.scrubbles.tech if you want to join our small community)

    Second, as a nerd who has dabbled with generated art - thank you trolls for ruining it for all of us. This is just going to beg for regulations that is going to ruin the generative AI world - as if we didn’t have enough regulations barreling towards the area with copyright issues.

    Third, as someone who hates Musk - I hope everything focuses on him and the platform formerly known as Twitter.

    • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      10 months ago

      In doesn’t matter. Sophisticated models are open-source and have already been forked and archived beyond all conceivable hope of regulation. There’s no going back.

    • Pratai@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is just going to beg for regulations that is going to ruin the generative AI world

      One can only hope! Fingers crossed!!!

    • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You can’t regulate something that takes desktop levels of power to make. What are you going to do? Arrest people in China, Russia NK, etc.? Societal change is needed, not regulation.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        Societal change is needed, not regulation.

        I agree on the regulation, but I don’t think that society is likely to change. Are entertainers going to stop making use of sex appeal?

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Block their IPs. Keeps happening? Block their subnet. Of course taking this approach we may end up blocking all of Russia, China, NK, etc.

        Nothing of value will be lost.

  • 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒍@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    10 months ago

    Just look at Facebook, yesterday I was spammed by sites with AI fakes of Scarlett Johansson, reported them all, this morning Billie Eilish with biiiig boobs in suggestive positions, reported, now I’m being bombarded by Alexandra Daddario obvious fakes, it’s getting ridiculous

      • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s not that at all. I keep tabs on several far-flung friends and relatives on FB. Zero spam. TBF, I make it a point to click on ads for things I don’t need but don’t mind seeing (rockets, 3D printers, vocal jazz stuff). Of course, I’m on IPv4 with my whole household, so if I search for hiking shoes, everyone in the house gets FB ads for hiking shoes. I got a bunch of ads for Merino Wool outerwear in mid December. My wife was kind enough to get me several base layers for Christmas. There is no good and bad, just poor internet management and hygiene (IMHO).

        • 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒍@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I don’t mind ads and suggested pages that are vaguely related to my interests, but aside from obscene manga and obvious fake baits for horny men (seriously I watch my porn in private tabs), I’m not interested in groups as exotic as “car spotting Philippines” or “my dream mud house in Congo”

          • Overzeetop@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            So - honest advice. I remember magazines - some with more ads than articles. You just flip past them. It’s different now because websites know your scrolling rates and FB wants you to engage. It’s why I actually click though a couple of ads every so often. Merrill? Great shoes. Osprey? Yeah, nice backpacks. Anycubic? I’ll probably want a new resin printer some day. Sure, with 2-3 clicks I can - and do - switch to the chronological “friends” feed that is exclusively friend-posted content with some paid ads (not engagement content) to pay the bills.

            As for private browsing, I hear you. But, also, your IP is part of your online fingerprint. You don’t need cookies or tracking pixels from previous sessions active for FB to know - through the aggregation data they buy (possibly even from your Internet provider) what you’re looking at.

            [Disclaimer - this next bit is anecdotal, no data to support the following theory.]I had a friend who suddenly was getting a ton of MAGA and alien conspiracy ads of his FB page. He doesn’t track his outgoing IP but I suspect that he was just re-assigned an outgoing IP that has previously been used by someone else (his locality is very red, politically, though he ie not). I know for my IP I’ve had my IPv4 for at least 7 months. It’s one reason that my wife, daughter and I all get intertwined ads on what we search.

            To attempt get around this, one option is a vpn. Add to that a separate private browser (it’s how I did my online Christmas shopping, and it’s kind of a pain). You’re still in danger of machine fingerprinting, but it’s usually too much hassle for just marketing to wind its way back to you.

    • essell@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      That damn algorithm. You send a dic pic to one celebrity and you’re being bombarded for life

    • PatMustard@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      Still literally millions and millions of users who don’t care about the things we care about

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Well yeah, the platform owned by the richest guy in the world is the place to go to follow all the monetized socialists that are making millions playing video games on youtube and selling awesome socialist merch.

          So of course all the cool socialists hang out there. Gotta be there to find out which products to buy to get socialist cred.

          Have they come out with the new socialist NFTs yet? I mean the capitalist (eewww grosss, rite?) crypto market collapsed so it makes sense to buy MarxCoins now right? Vaush needs a new Luxury SUV, Hasan needs a new yacht, buy MarxCoins now! Dialectic NFTs on sale soon!

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s the smallest major social network but there’s still 300 million ish people on it.

  • Beefalo@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    10 months ago

    Sharks have flooded Shark Infested Waters with shark asshole stink but this time the asshole stink is AI generated and Taylor Swift has a billion dollars for lawyers.

  • elfpie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    The obvious solution on X’s side is to ID everyone that wants to post anything. And remember that the obvious solution doesn’t have to be the best solution, a good solution or, even, a real solution at all.

    • M500@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m against deepfaking others without their consent, but all this coverage has me wondering what the big deal is. Things like this have always existed, what is the difference this time?

        • M500@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s the Streisand effect. Now I want to see out of curiosity. Not that I’m going to, but all this talk has me wondering why it’s suddenly being spoken about.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summary

    One of the most prominent examples on X attracted more than 45 million views, 24,000 reposts, and hundreds of thousands of likes and bookmarks before the verified user who shared the images had their account suspended for violating platform policy.

    In some regions, the term “Taylor Swift AI” became featured as a trending topic, promoting the images to wider audiences.

    X’s policies regarding synthetic and manipulated media and nonconsensual nudity both explicitly ban this kind of content from being hosted on the platform.

    In response, fans have responded by flooding hashtags used to circulate the images with messages that instead promote real clips of Swift performing to hide the explicit fakes.

    The responsibility of preventing fake images from spreading often falls to social platforms — something that can be difficult to do under the best of circumstances and even harder for a company like X that has hollowed out its moderation capabilities.

    The company is currently being investigated by the EU regarding claims that it’s being used to “disseminate illegal content and disinformation” and is reportedly being questioned regarding its crisis protocols after misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war was found being promoted across the platform.


    Saved 54% of original text.