Technology

The Guardian: We interviewed a police officer, from an organization most of the public doesn't trust, and he spouted off his opinion. Since he said the magic word "AI", we jumped all over it.

I'd like to know how this is actually "accelerating violence against women and girls". This is on the level of "video games promotes violence and creates serial killers" panic statements of the 80s and 90s.

I can see this. Someone had a comment in another thread that if its for private use its fine and I sorta get that but someone else made the point that ai should not have the info really. So people should really be concerned that ai can have image or video or audio input by users. They should have to use text or non image docs. If someone wants to deepfake and ex they will need to describe them.

I mean, the majority of deepfakes out there are so bad that I understand that some people don't care about them. But this stuff keeps getting better with time.

I think the argument will eventually end up in the uncanny valley, like obviously it's legal to draw a shitty little cartoon of someone engaged in sex but as it becomes closer to photorealism it becomes illegal? Is photoshopping someone's head onto a porn star illegal? I mainly dont like laws like this because it bring politicians that are ignorant about AI into legislating it on the basis of it being about scandalous sex related stuff, generally to sell more surveillance.