It took us less than 30 seconds to find banned 'deepfake' AI smut on the internet Fake AI-generated pornography has been banned by sites including Reddit and Pornhub, but others operations say they're fine with the practice of putting celebrities' faces on porn actresses' bodies. Such videos are made possible by neural network technology that can learn the features of anyone’s face and maps it onto bodies …
"they had managed to find information on how to kill people with a car."
Running over them would seem to be both pretty effective, and easier than more elaborate ways.
I'd think the fact this is such common knowledge, pretty much nullifies any attempt at praising them for a 'job well done'on the subject.
Who said that the porn actor has not granted consent?
The Celebutards have no entitlement to grant or deny consent here. A Celebutard does not own the copyright to its likeness if produced by another person. If I draw a Celebutard with or without computer assistance I own the copyright. End of story.
Going back to the fake videos. If the copyright holder of the porn actor/actress has been asked for permission to be used as a body double this is a totally legit video. So Reddit and Pornhub AUP does not stand to even minimal legal scrutiny.
has been asked for permission to be used as a body double this is a totally legit video
Just to be clear - this is what the copyright law says on the subject.
It is irrelevant if it is appaling, disgusting or simply a high tech version of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINZBOxdja8
"So... when will the first case be heard should an innocent person be deepfaked onto a rumpypumpy video which causes said person to lose his/her job?"
Now that this technology is accessible to anyone with a PC + respectable GPU, the question of "guilty" or innocent is going to become irrelevant - people can just say "deepfaked - it wasn't me" when confronted with video evidence of them carrying out any activity they would rather keep secret.
"Reasonable doubt" just got a whole lot bigger.
(Yes, I know the videos produced still have identifiable artifacts - how long will that last?)
Now that this technology is accessible to anyone with a PC + respectable GPU, the question of "guilty" or innocent is going to become irrelevant - people can just say "deepfaked - it wasn't me" when confronted with video evidence of them carrying out any activity they would rather keep secret.
This was somewhat investigated in the classic 1980s cinematic masterpiece The Running Man where a future was predicted when faces can me mapped in real time onto actors' bodies.
Granted, they also predicted we'll all be driving Ford Tauruses and have big hair in the future, but close enough.
This post has been deleted by its author
"That response is, however, a part of the problem because relying on someone to flag such videos does not deter people from making more of them and uploading them to the internet."
And short of preventing uploads at all, how exactly do you expect companies to control what is uploaded before it appears on their servers?
"how exactly do you expect companies to control what is uploaded before it appears on their servers?"
By checking the video after it's uploaded, but before it's made visible to the general public. Duh.
That said, I doubt any automated process could easily catch a faked video, and if the video didn't feature well known actors (eg if someone put their ex's face into a pron vid) I doubt even a human moderator would catch it.
"Kompromat'ed politicians"
I don't know about you, but I dream of the day - yes, I wake screaming and sweating and the cat has to see a psychiatrist afterwards - when I am forced to watch deepfaked movies of Jenna Jameson with Ronald Reagan's face, or Bill Clinton's, in flagrante delicto with someone else. Don't even mention President Trump's honeymoon videos with President Putin, please!!!!
Such videos are made possible by neural network technology that can learn the features of anyone’s face and maps it onto bodies in videos.
Such videos are possible because some artists/cartoonists are capable of approaching photorealism and they now have tools more sophisticated than crayons to play with.
I've seen porn featuring Slebs that was obviously created with a pencil and paper, other stuff created with photoshop, and now we're supposed to collapse in pearl-clutching horror because those 'shops have been stitched together into "moving pictures"!? Seriously?
It's almost as bad as someone phoning around doing a Tom Baker impression. I mean, someone might think they have a genuine Time Lord on the line!
Culshaw (doing Baker's voice, but in character as the Fourth Doctor) rang Sylvester McCoy, trying to get him to get involved in some world-saving escapade involving Sontarans or something.
McCoy played along, and it became apparent that he believed it to be the real Tom Baker, roaring drunk.
It also became apparent that this was not the first time it had happened...
(Close second was when Culshaw rang Baker himself, who at one point asked "what can I do for you? If it's money you need, I'm not short of a shilling.")
> In regards to flagging nonconsensual content, either the person who deems the content nonconsensual or their legal representative can use the form to request removal of content and cite that they themselves did not contest for it to be uploaded.”
What about if the pr0n star who's body was used objects to it being associated with the famous person's head? Do they have a say in the matter? And have they got a way to prove that it was actually their body.
Maybe it is time for pr0nstars to have a unique bar code tattooed somewhere on their skin. It would have to be in a place that would be readily visible in a porno. Hmmmm, where, exactly????
"Maybe it is time for pr0nstars to have a unique bar code tattooed somewhere on their skin. It would have to be in a place that would be readily visible in a porno. Hmmmm, where, exactly????"
Considering that in a lot of porn you often don't get to see uninteresting things like the guys face, pornstars have a tendency to have unique tatts and body jewelry that makes it easier to identify them.
Welcome to Jamaica, and have a nice day.
That's not a pig, that's T. May Not. And she's not dead, except between the ears. And it is a fake, Cameron has _some_ principles and there are things which he just won't do. (Not very many things, to be sure, but some) That's really Tony Blair, faked up to look like Cameron. There's nothing that B-Liar won't do.
On the bright side, they eventually grow up.
But, there's always a new crop of pre-teens waiting to fill the void.
And so it was, and ever shall be.
Can we as a species please grow up and get over being shocked for the sake of being shocked? It's getting very old ... and it's exactly the reaction that the people who "invent" this kind of thing are looking for. Stop playing into their hands, prudes!
If they are now indistinguishable from the real thing, they can now claim it is a fake. In fact, they could hire an actor and actress willing to say "yeah, that was us" and fake THEIR faces over that of the celebrity and partner to "prove" it wasn't them!
TBH I don't really make a distinction between fake and real politician/celeb any more. They're all just bodies for hire to promote a product, and whether they're the "real thing", a human impersonator or a digital avatar doesn't make much difference.
People doing this are creeps, but bringing back dead people for Star Wars or adverts is technologically brilliant?
I feel some moral judgements are being made here.
On a more serious note, the ability to create material that would otherwise be illegal for therapeutic purposes is one of a number of socially beneficial uses for this technology.
On a more serious note, the ability to create material that would otherwise be illegal for therapeutic purposes is one of a number of socially beneficial uses for this technology.
Maybe, in a limited number of cases. More generally, not.
The statistics do seem to support the idea that if people men have porn to wank over they're less likely to commit sex crimes. There are exceptions, but overall more porn (for some values of porn) = less sex crime.
Twenty or thirty years ago (I don't remember the date when it changed) UK parliament was of the opinion that fake child porn was OK, on the basis that it was better for somebody to wank over it than actually molest a child. Then it was pointed out that fake child porn could be used to entice and normalize "See, this little girl in the picture is doing it. She wouldn't be doing it if it was wrong. And she's enjoying it." So now such imagery is illegal.
So, in general, it won't be permitted for therapeutic purposes. At least not without supervision to ensure the material is not copied for other uses. I doubt many people would wish to be a supervisor in such circumstances.
No doubt it will be created by individuals for self-"therapeutic" purposes. And then distributed amongst like-minded people. And therefore be made illegal (if existing legislation doesn't already cover it, which it probably does.) Because it will also be used to entice and normalize.
also not certain why you had to go looking for it to write this article?
Probably the first thing that came into his head when the Mrs caught him watching Pammy's sex tape again.
"This isn't what it looks like.... I was erm, er, er, er.... just researching an article on celeb porn for El Reg. Honest."
Which is one of the reasons courts are very particular about the presentation of "taped" evidence.
Never having been interviewed under caution but going on what I've read the machine makes two copies of the interview and the accused (or their legal council) retains one copy (audio and video). This is acceptable in court. That hidden dictation machine in your pocket - probably not admissible in court.
Forensics these days can also detect tampering with recordings. Amongst the methods is analysis of the background electricity hum, something that cannot be faked and cannot be spliced
I'd be willing to wager that a certain Mr Smith, he of parliamentary porn expenses infamy, would not be using this technology to superimpose his Mrs' fizzog onto the porn that he/she/the public taxpayer purchases.**
New technology?
Wasn't there a case a UK a few years back, a guy being done (amongst other things) for porn videos including sex with animals?
Trial starts. Wasn't long before the Judge asked the CPS if it wasn't actually a cartoon animal they were watching.
"Oh yeah" say the CPS "it is. Fancy that, in all our best professionalism (at public expense) we never even noticed." Either the technology was very good back then or the CPS shite at their job (or maybe the agenda bias got in the way, who knows).
**That said, there could well be a case for using this technology to "cure" people of their porn habits. Sorry for this, but would you really want to watch porn with Ms Sturgeons superimposed onto it even if the true porn actress had a banging body?"
**That said, there could well be a case for using this technology to "cure" people of their porn habits. Sorry for this, but would you really want to watch porn with Ms Sturgeons superimposed onto it even if the true porn actress had a banging body?"
And I used to joke about Janet Reno porn... (for those on your side of the pond, think Margaret Thatcher after she went on an all-night bender).
So much easier to do if your particular preference is for animated characters to begin with Bonus points for you if your particular series of interest started out as an Eroge Game.
And if your desired characters/voicebanks already have models for MMD, the complexity is simply mapping out the movements.
So much easier to do if your particular preference is for animated characters to begin with Bonus points for you if your particular series of interest started out as an Eroge Game.
And if your desired characters/voicebanks already have models for MMD, the complexity is simply mapping out the movements.
Well, yes. Also possible with Facegen and applications like Smithmicro Poser or Daz studio. Not a vast amount of look-a-likes about if you prefer to buy than craft your own, but I think most of the popular ones from Game of Thrones have been done.
This whole palava has mostly blown up becasue A.I. in the title.
Develop, within the porn industry, an arrangement where the body is provided by one person, the face by another -- with the upshots *cough* being that both the body-providing individual retains anonymity -- is thus spared public notoriety -- and the face-provider -- who could even contribute via 'face-capture' shooting -- is known not to have engaged in whatever 'sex' is portrayed in that film? It would create a remove, or distance, from the tawdry aspects -- if any -- of in-frame participation in porn film production.
"Who'da thunk?!?"
Depends on what you do for a living. I used to be in charge of a popular web filter used by local schools. Sometimes I had to surf porn sites, purely for professional code maintenance reasons. I would warn the rest of the office (glass walled cubicles), most wouldn't care, some would stand behind me and watch.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
