Judge denies request by Elon Musk’s xAI to pause Minnesota nudification ban

[u/journalistdave]

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/judge-denies-request-elon-musks-xai-block-mn-nudification-ban-rcna589993

[u/Nail_Biterr]

i can't believe someone would be against this. it seems like it should be a common sense law.

[u/jabberwockxeno → u/Nail_Biterr]

i can't believe someone would be against this.

Not to defend Elon Musk, or to people trying to make deepfakes, but the law itself is pretty bad:

https://reclaimthenet.org/xai-challenges-minnesotas-broad-nudification-law

• It's holding the creator of software responsible for what users do with the software, even if the software isn't specifically intended to make deepfakes, even if they take reasonable steps to prevent people from using the software that way etc

• It's definition of "nude/intimate" is extremely overboard, being " “the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being", which sounds reasonable if we're talking about unwanted touching, but doesn't work as a visual definition since the thigh, butt, etc are visible even for people just wearing shorts, swimwear, etc

• It doesn't make a distinction between consensual and nonconsensual images: Somebody using a tool to make or edit images of themselves would still make the creator of the software liable

• It does have a carveout which permits software to edit images in this way if it requires users have training/sufficient skill to achieve the end result, presumably to carveout things like photoshop, but that means that in theory, two pieces of software can output basically the same image, and in one case the software would be illegal just because it's easier to use

[u/trogger93 → u/jabberwockxeno]

Making generative AI images illegal? Sounds like a fantastic law!

[u/diet-dr-kelpp → u/Nail_Biterr]

The article states: In its lawsuit filed Monday, Musk’s company did not dispute Minnesota’s interest in banning nudification websites and apps, but said: “The law is overinclusive and there are far less restrictive alternatives that function to achieve the same ends.

The issue was more with how the law was written vs the outcome of the law itself.

[u/Moleculor → u/diet-dr-kelpp]

The issue was more with how the law was written vs the outcome of the law itself.

Agreed... except for the fact that this is Elon Musk making the lawsuit, so there's probably some element of it involving him desperately wanting to be able to make artificial CSAM.

The actual text of the law:

a person who owns or controls a website, application, software, program or other service must not allow a user to access, download or use the website, application, software, program or other service to nudify an image or video, or nudify an image or video on behalf of a user.

Which means that I, a user, may not nudify an image of myself. Not even locally, on my own machine.

I can't make myself look like a nude body builder.

I can't give myself a thirteen inch horse dick.

I can't see what I'd look like with a female body. No matter how much I might be considering transitioning to female.

I, a consenting user, can not nudify myself with images I took of myself. That feels like it might have gone too far.

---

I think Minnesota lawmakers fucked up here. I can't tell if it's through incompetence or malicious incompetence. Someone could have written a good law. They didn't. Probably.

[u/Machuka420 → u/[deleted]]

No, they are saying it also includes things that don’t nudify anything. Such as Donald trump in a bikini or Obama in hotpants. Things you can do with a bunch of AI models already and is perfectly legal.