If someone generated AI “deep fakes”, then what abuse took place? While those images are generally distasteful, rude, offensive, and invasive, if they're generated images, then they can't rise to the level of abuse, since the majority of the content is fake, and therefore protected until freedom of expression / speech. This idea has been fought before, it's why people can publish child sexual novels, and why organizations like NAMBLA can exist.
You're right. It's not abuse unless it's real photos. I think of those YouTube videos where these amazing artists draw photorealistic images by hand. If this horny kid had such a talent would they arrest him and ruin his life for putting to paper what was in his mind?
Regardless how anyone feels about the content, I know as a father of two teenage daughters, I would want the death penalty, the right to free speech and free expression must be upheld. What is the difference between a generated picture of a naked teenager, vs, Romeo and Juliet? Would those same parents demand Romeo and Juliet get removed, and people resign?
Funny how they did an old Romeo and Juliet movie which had underage nudity in it and at the time everyone thought it was tasteful, but now the actors are suing and people are calling it child porn.
Just so there's absolutely no confusion, I'm only coming at this from a free speech / freedom of expression context. I do not defend generating sexual fakes of others.
Same here with the now mandatory disclaimer. Also, not pro-child porn or pedo, but people defending free speech are going to get grouped in with them, just like those defending LGBTQ library books being called groomers.
He coulda just walked out and disappeared into the crowd.
Two situations to track in use of smart guns:
A. Someone dies because a cop's gun doesn't work when used by cop.
B. Someone (not cop) dies when cop's gun is wrestled away from him.
If A is less than B then it is a good idea.
Also, curious as to whether there might be situations where smart guns might be more effective because you don't have to shut off a safety. Don't know if cop's guns have safeties or if there is any data on how many times someone has been hurt when they were trying to defend themselves and forgot to switch off a safety.
Carl Sagan once commented (can't recall where) on the general aversion people hold toward the government conducting experiments in public policy. He then detailed how every change of law was an experiment of sorts, although often without proper controls.
If Facebook should be required to inform consumers of how they experimentally manipulate them then should Kellogg's reveal the details of how they use marketing to manipulate kids into buying Fruit Loops?
I think there was a Big Bang Theory ep where Sheldon tried to solve the "Isreal Problem" or however it is put. Since this is slashdot I wish someone would really explore some possible tech solutions being proposed. I've always wanted someone to put the problem in monetary terms. If it were possible to give every resident of gaza a million dollars to move to another country you could just buy them out. Obviously that is not possible, but there might be a number below that which would buy out enough of the population to be effective.
Not saying money is all that is at play here, but it certainly seems like something a bit more objective than all these fuzzy arguments about human rights or religious mandate.
"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognise terrorism if it came up and bit him on his Internet." -- Ross M. Greenberg