back to article 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 …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    Ooopss

    sorry seemed to have stumbled onto the Daily Mail site.

    I'll go try find The Register instead.

  2. Mycho Silver badge

    Re: Ooopss

    To be fair, the Daily Mail announced that they had managed to find information on how to kill people with a car. That's much more serious.

  3. Jonathan 27

    Re: Ooopss

    What does it say about the Daily Mail that I can't tell if you're joking or not?

  4. Mycho Silver badge
  5. MrZoolook

    Re: Ooopss

    "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.

  6. Mycho Silver badge

    Re: Ooopss

    Wait, now the register contains information on how to kill people with a car?

    Quick! Buy shares in pearls. People will need new ones to clutch.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “tolerate any nonconsensual content on the site”

    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.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: “tolerate any nonconsensual content on the site”

    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

  9. PNGuinn Silver badge
    IT Angle

    "If I draw a Celebutard with or without computer assistance I own the copyright".

    Drawing a Celebutard. Hmmm. ....

    Doesn't that in itself make you feel just a little bit dirty?

    +1 for Celebutard BTW

  10. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    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?

  11. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    Trump? Pee-pee? It's an interesting defence...

  12. S4qFBxkFFg

    "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?)

  13. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

    "will the first case be heard"

    Ive onlu seen the example pic in the last reg article , but i suspect we're a long way off the videos not being blindingly obviously fake if given a second glance.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A long time ago we may have been a long way off - we are now there.

  15. Danny 2 Silver badge

    Yup, all the past years appalling videos and photographs of Trump have obviously been faked. It is simply not credible that the President of the United States of America would demean the office in that way.

  16. beast666

    I think the Clintons and Obama are in more need of an 'interesting defence' right now. Ha ha ha!

    Lock her up!

  17. Symon Silver badge
    Coat

    It might be "a long way off " but it's coming.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

  19. David 164

    Not long one suspects. Considering this was built by just one developer, who knows what the likes of GCHQ and NSA or Google, Facebook could develop with far larger teams and better hardware.

  20. Big Al
    FAIL

    Duh.

    "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?

  21. phuzz Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Re: Duh.

    "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.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's the ultimate get-out excuse

    for Kompromat'ed politicians.

  23. Sanguma

    Re: It's the ultimate get-out excuse

    "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!!!!

  24. Lysenko Silver badge

    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!

  25. DontFeedTheTrolls
    Coat

    There was a time when you could phone Tom Baker any time you fancied. Sadly that time is gone.

  26. Danny 2 Silver badge

    Marge Simpson never did those things.

  27. earl grey Silver badge
    Trollface

    pearl-clutching horror

    Are you sure those are pearls?

  28. SonofRojBlake

    The funniest one Dead Ringers ever did...

    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.")

  29. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Seeing the goods

    > 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????

  30. onefang
    Coat

    Re: Seeing the goods

    "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.

  31. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    "It took us less than 30 seconds to find smut..."

    Yes, but I'm sure you've all had a lot of experience in the field...

  32. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

    Allegedly there's a video of David Cameron doing it with a dead pig. Oh, wait, that's not a deepfake.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He didn't do it

    and having sex with a pig is only a crime if the pig is alive at the time.

  34. Ben Bonsall

    Re: He didn't do it

    not true, if done in public it may be a crime if anyone finds it offensive. almost certainly if done near a school

  35. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

    Re: He didn't do it

    Were you there when he didn't do it?

  36. James O'Shea Silver badge

    vile slander

    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.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: He didn't do it

    Close, it only requires the possibility that someone might find it offensive, and so is still technically a crime even if no-one else knows it happened.

  38. CAPS LOCK

    All this outrage is missing the significance of this...

    ...Now there's a porn use for AI the progress of the technology will accelerate substantially. The Ai we see in films will be factual in weeks...

  39. jake Silver badge

    I see teh intrawebtubes haven't changed teenagers appreciably.

    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!

  40. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Well not to worry as the UK is coming to the rescue and we won't be able to see any pr0n without the BBFC approving it first. So Mumsnet users let your kids run free on the internet and if they do see pr0n it's the government's fault not yours.

  41. DougS Silver badge

    Could mark the end of the celebrity/political sex tape

    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!

  42. Tim 11

    Re: Could mark the end of the celebrity/political sex tape

    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.

  43. scrubber Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Creeps?

    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.

  44. Mycho Silver badge

    Re: Creeps?

    Yeah, deepfaking a face onto a significantly different head doesn't work.

  45. handleoclast Silver badge

    Re: Creeps?

    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.

  46. Chris Jasper

    Still not entirely certain why you would want to put someone else's face on a porn scene, also not certain why you had to go looking for it to write this article?

  47. LucreLout Silver badge

    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."

  48. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Article author is female.

  49. Stoneshop Silver badge
    FAIL

    Article author is female.

    And they're not supposed to have a Mrs?

  50. Jamie Jones Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Re: Article author is female.

    The comment referred to "his" and "him".

    Anonymous coward pointed out it was a female.

    I see your FAIL and raise you a FACEPALM!

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018