[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.