801
Women in Brussels 'filmed without their knowledge' by men wearing Meta smart glasses (www.brusselstimes.com)
submitted 3 months ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.world
321 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“Experts in Europe warn that these devices are used to record strangers without their consent, possibly breaching EU law.”

“A small LED light is designed to indicate when recording is taking place, but RTBF's investigators found that tutorials explaining how to conceal the indicator are abundant and easily accessible online.”

Sometimes I have a hard time deciding who I despise more, parasite Mark Zuckerberg or its witless hosts who keep using its products—yes, Zuck's pronoun is it. Ban Ray-Ban, for frick's sake.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 27 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Except that these cameras easily go anywhere, they aren't just outside on the street.

Spas? Pools? Gyms Locker rooms? Find a nice spot sitting on a bench near a women's dressing room at the mall that peeks in a bit? Set your glasses at your side and record while you look ahead at your phone, not freaking anyone out. They're pervert enablers just as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    as much as Grok is a CSAM machine if you pay for it.

    CSAM is Child Sexual Assault Media, and Grok is not providing that, it's providing Child Pornography.

    You are comparing making non-consensual material with real people to generating material with no real people (based off real media, though, but that's an implication with everything AI-generated).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    If you spend some time understanding how AI image generation works, it's essentially iterating on known images to make images that are probably also close to what it was rained on.

    So if someone took some CSAM pictures printed up, and cut them up and made a collage, is that no longer CSAM? Of course not. It's still CSAM. If someone took digital CSAM images and photoshoped the victims into different settings, it's still CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material.

    If you trained a Stable Diffusion model on only pictures of Rwandan people, and asked for an image of "a man sitting on a chair" the man will look vaguely Rwandan.

    When you train an AI on CSAM, it produces images that are based on CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material, too. Close e-fuckin'-nough. Real people's victimization is literally the core of how those images are made.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    it’s essentially iterating on known images

    No. It's iterating on the common traits of known images compressed plus lots of randomization.

    If you trained a Stable Diffusion model on only pictures of Rwandan people, and asked for an image of “a man sitting on a chair” the man will look vaguely Rwandan.

    If you train a model on adult pornography and non-pornography with children and adults alike, it might be capable of generating plausible child pornography.

    When you train an AI on CSAM, it produces images that are based on CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material, too. Close e-fuckin’-nough. Real people’s victimization is literally the core of how those images are made.

    I've just told you how this is not true.

    You seem to have that "all or nothing" mindset in an argument, as if you really didn't like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.

    Point being that child pornography without real victims is something not contested here and has its own implications. You are trying to argue on something out of reach.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Do you honestly think people who make AI CP and want to see CP are training models on a ton of things to get them close, and then figuring out how to nudge it all just a bit further? Or do the people already in the CSAM world with access to CSAM that want to make CP just use the CSAM to train the model? I expect the second. Meaning there's victims.

    Plus, it's disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn't just in general. It's weird that you're defending it like it's diet coke or something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Plus, it’s disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn’t just in general. It’s weird that you’re defending it like it’s diet coke or something.

    "It's disgusting" is not quite the right argument for making something illegal.

    And that "you're defending" presupposition should honestly be your last claim in any group of people before being shown the door.

    You seem to have that “all or nothing” mindset in an argument, as if you really didn’t like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.

    Quoting myself.

    I "honestly think" each case is unique. Just like with everything else.

    CP is harmful due to normalizing the thing, useful due to redirecting some of the energy people with that pathology have away from, you know, real children.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •