this post was submitted on 03 May 2026
176 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

84302 readers
4123 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
176
Minnesota passes ban on fake AI nudes; app makers risk $500K fines | More evidence of Grok CSAM seen as Minnesota passes nudifying app ban. (arstechnica.com)
submitted 17 hours ago by sanitation@lemmy.radio to c/technology@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spizzat2@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Under the law, developers of websites, apps, software, or other services designed to “nudify” images risk extensive damages[...]

I'm not going to take the time to read the language of the law, but I worry that "designed to" could give developers a lot of deniability.

"No, see... My app is designed to show you what you look like in user-created outfits. Like a virtual closet mirror! What do you mean users are trying on tiny bikinis and clear cellophane dresses? How could I ever have planned for that?"

Still, a good step in the right direction, I suppose.

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 1 points 11 minutes ago

(I'm citing the law, not the article)

There's a few things that I think help prevent something like that from happening.

"Nudify" or "nudified" means the process by which: an image or video is altered or generated to depict an intimate part not depicted in an original unaltered image or video of an identifiable individual

"Intimate parts" includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.

So a reasonably sized bikini probably wouldn't qualify, because it still covers intimate areas to some degree, but anything too skimpy would.

The prohibitions in subdivision 2 do not apply when the website, application, software, program, or other service requires the technical skill of a user to nudify an image or video.

So something like Photoshop wouldn't qualify because you'd need the skills to actually edit images yourself.

I think this:

“No, see… My app is designed to show you what you look like in user-created outfits. Like a virtual closet mirror! What do you mean users are trying on tiny bikinis and clear cellophane dresses? How could I ever have planned for that?”

Would be prevented by this law, but with very good reason. Anyone developing a feature like that could very well simply develop a filter that can tell if too much of a sensitive area is being exposed that wasn't previously there. If they put technical safeguards in place, and it takes reasonably large amounts of effort for a user to bypass, then the site wouldn't be liable because it would require "technical skill of a user".

A site like that can exist, and being able to digitally try on outfits is nice, but it shouldn't be allowed to ignore the obvious consequences of not putting restrictions on how much skin can be shown.