There was a brief period between now and the invention of photography when that was true. For thousands of years before that it was possible to create a visual representation of anything you imagine without any hint that it wasn’t something real. Makes me wonder if there were similar controversies about drawings or paintings.
Comment on ‘Nudify’ Apps That Use AI to ‘Undress’ Women in Photos Are Soaring in Popularity
jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev 5 months agoNo I disagree because before you could tell a fake from a mile away, but deepfakes bring it to a whole new level of creepy because they can be EXTREMELY convincing
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 months ago
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That is a quality improvement, not a shift in nature.
barsoap@lemm.ee 5 months ago
The difference is that we now can do video. I mean in principle that was possible before but also a hell of a lot of work. Making it look real hasn’t been a problem since before Photoshop, if anything people get sloppy with AI also because a felt 99% of people who use AI don’t have an artistic bone in their body.
Delta_V@midwest.social 5 months ago
Or maybe an accessibility improvement. You don’t need to practice creating your own works of art over many years anymore, or have enough money to commission a master artist. The AI artists are good enough and work for cheap.
jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev 5 months ago
I’m not saying that it’s a shift in nature? All I’ve been saying is:
A) tools to create realistic nudes have been publicly available ever since deepfakes became a thing
B) deepfakes are worse than traditional photoshopped nudes because (as you put it, a quality improvement) they’re more convincing and therefore can have more detrimental effects