[jsnell]

That doesn't seem like an accurate summary. The actual quotes address the generation of those images, not just the distribution:

> "Parliament needs to have the opportunity to debate whether nude and sexually explicit images generated digitally without consent should be outlawed, and I believe if this were to happen the law would change."

And it's about restricting the tools, not just what's done with them:

> "If software providers develop this technology, they are complicit in a very serious crime and should be required to design their products to stop this happening."

[laurowyn]

>> "If software providers develop this technology, they are complicit in a very serious crime and should be required to design their products to stop this happening."

so we should outlaw any piece of technology that can be misused?

This is what happens when technologically inept people make laws to regulate technology. By this standard, cameras should be outlawed in case they're used to take sexually explicit pictures without consent. Computers should be outlawed in case they're used to distribute anything illicit.

Outlawing the production (by any means) and/or distribution (by any means) of non-consensual, sexually explicit material should be enough. If someone can show evidence that someone has produced to shared such content, then that's enough to demonstrate the offence.

No need to go stopping the rest of us from using technology just because some disgusting excuse for a human decided to demonstrate some of the worst of humanity with said technology.

[dralley]

I don't think this applies. Cameras are general tools that have many useful purposes. So are computers.

This is specifically an AI tool that creates fake nudes. Whatever useful, appropriate purposes for this tool (if any) exist - they pale in comparison to your examples.

[laurowyn]

The quote was about the technology in general, not the specific application.

The technology has plenty of applications in CGI and trying to push through the uncanny valley. By no means am I claiming that a tool designed to generate sexually explicit material without consent is an appropriate use. But the fact is, technology is used and abused every day without having such huge sanctions put on it. What makes this any different? the fact it's new.

But it's not a new trend by any means. 20 years ago, 'x-raying' was a thing. Photoshop someone to look like their clothes are transparent. Or the bubbles effect, using circles cut out of a mask layer to hide clothing to make the image look like a nude without showing anything explicit.

The fact is outlawing technology just means something new will turn up to replace the old. Whereas making the end product illegal to possess and/or distribute gives a far more beneficial power to law enforcement and the legal system. "I'm sorry officer, these were generated using a different tool, so they're actually legal" or "you can't prove what tool was used to create them" would be perfectly viable defences if the tool is outlawed, vs the act itself.

[read_if_gay_]

> should be required to design their products to stop this happening.

How?

How are you going to stop people from sharing images of what your software produced?

There might be more context to this quote but is insane how out of touch lawmakers often appear to be with respect to technology. Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns which completely nullify the idea behind them.

How do we create working legislation for technology?

[tester34]

Store who, where and what kind of image has generated with your tool and attach metadata to file like EXIF

I guess?

[laurowyn]

So just delete the exif data, and we're back to square one.

[howaboutnope]

> Just look at all of the cookie banners plastered with dark patterns

That's thanks to webmasters who want to track visitors on the first visit, instead, of, say, having an opt-in link somewhere in the footer. It's amazing how much FUD is spread about the GDPR, and it's ironic in context of accusing lawmakers of cluelessnes, who in this case demonstrated more clue than millions of people apparently have about their own job.

[read_if_gay_]

Cookie banners are utterly ineffective.

The websites create the problem in the first place, that's obvious, but lawmakers are apparently too incompetent to come up with effective solutions.

[mattashii]

> ... sexually explicit images generated digitally without consent should be outlawed ...

So, if I were to run DeepSukebe on an analog AI chip the generated pictures would be totally fine to distribute?

It seems to me that this should instead be 'images generated without consent'; that is, without specifying how this can be generated.

[jimktrains2]

Digitally is/has become synonymous with "on a computer" or "algorithmically" because we do not have any non-digital computers to which we refer to as computers.

[mattashii]

Yes, but it shouldn't matter whether I make pictures of others on my PC or by hand if the other didn't consent to me making those pictures. Regardless of the type of picture.