It's ok if you:
1) Tell it what you want
2) Then realize it messed up because you forgot to specify more details
3) Repeat 1) & 2) ~25-50 (maybe>100) times, with different restarts/contexts with a clear goal of style and performance in mind.
4) Make some minor adjustments on your own
Now you have that 6 line script you wanted.
Honestly it is still pretty useful though, as you can see 'your code in different clothing styles' in some sense, very quickly to choose the best/most performant option. You just have to know what that looks like before going in, and it helps make it 'tangible' quicker.
It matters only because AI is new/hot topic. AI+TS is the only reason this is news as this has been happening for a long time.
TS needs to protect her image as it's worth a lot of money. Doesn't matter if it's AI, Photoshop or some drawing. The same as any other Trademark owner, they have to protect it to risk losing it.
Nobody is claiming this will stop AI or stop future scenarios, that doesn't mean that TS shouldn't also agressively protect her image.
Would it have been possible to pull this off when it wasn't easy to do? I can't put my finger on it but being easy changes things. It takes very few bad actors to have a big impact.
If this was just some random person, this would be a blip on nightly news - similar to the revengeporn website stuff.
It must be really interesting though, to be the person in all of Human History who is at the creation of a Humanity's awareness that controlling AI versions of our likeness is going to be an impactful and meaningful area in legal precedent for here to evermore.
Swift, IMO, should feel a certain sense of weird-luckiness? to literally the Human where we begin the discussion of protecting ourselves from AI fakes....
My question is, then, if Swift can be entirely in control of how her likeness is used in any context, then what about any random person's likeness being scanned, documented and analyzed by millions of camera surveillance feeds every day?
Its a weird tangent, but if Swift creates the foundation for (what would this be, case law? Precedent? Dont know what legal terms define this) - what impact could it have for people defending the even capture of their likeness by systems that use that likeness to develop a catalog of your biometric-behavors to track you, recreate you, catalog you, define you, and then have business systems use that data to make decisions upon or against you?
If I own all aspects of my biologics, then do I have ay agency over how data captured, and AI-ified, amy be used?
She is rich, and famous, and can both afford to fight legally, and sway public opinion to her side ( which is is the ethically sound side, it’s hard to argue it’s totally fine for anyone to make fake porn and share it of you without permission… doubly so given we allow people to exercise likeness rights )
So she has the social and economic power to stand up for her rights, and enforce her existing likeness rights in the face of some widespread AI imagery that is violating those rights…
I’m not expecting precedent, just another sad example of how the rich and powerful have rights the rest of us don’t, because you have to assert those rights which requires lawyers which requires money and so… the status quo continues as it exists today… “nothing to see here, move along”… sadly.
That's why I think this is really important for everyone - and not just about fake sex tapes - but in how much we control our presence in the world, specifically at the intersection of our Digital existence and our Biological existence.
And this is imperative to get right, given that our Digital selves are effectively immortal from this point forward - even though they will ultimate just be boiled down to some coordinate in a vector graph for eternity.
I think you expect too much. The end result is that she assets rights she already had yesterday, rights she had years ago before DALL-E or Stable Diffusion even existed… there’s nothing new here… just existing power structures that give the rich and famous some measure of control over their likeness due to it being part of their personal brands and thus their l business interests… while the non rich and famous have no right to privacy in public and short the limited protections that have been implemented in some circumstances against revenge porn, no right to protect their likeness being misused… from people taking pictures in public, to AI generated images… they do not have protections against this kind of thing as no act has been perpetuated against them unless it crosses a tiny minority of laws against things like commercial imagery rights which is why models have to sign a release… but that won’t protect from generated imagery given away for free.
Ironically I think that her fame has a chance of being her undoing on this subject and we'll end up with a situation where the famous have to endure certain kinds of sexual content being produced that features their likeness while the little people do not.
It’s going to spread to the little people too. Once deepfake technology proliferates to the point where anyone can train and run a model on consumer hardware using photos and videos from someone’s social media profile, what do you think the boys at school are going to do with it?
Hollywood is already struggling with how to handle these types of issues, with actors wanting to maintain control of their likeness and studios wanting to be able to own those at the very least as a "work for hire" property in the context of a movie character. Not that this is completely new. Crispen Glover sued over the producers of 'Back to the Future II' using another actor to give the impression of him playing the George McFly character instead of recasting the character or writing around the absence of the character. IIRC, Glover ended up winning.
> Swift, IMO, should feel a certain sense of weird-luckiness? to literally the Human where we begin the discussion of protecting ourselves from AI fakes....
Did you miss the part about the images containing her being raped and assaulted? This isn't a deepfake ripoff concert or something.
This woman is being actively stalked in real life by multiple people. She literally needs 24/7 security to protect her from weirdos. I highly doubt she's going to care even the slightest about being part of the "discussion", and the fact that you'd even suggest she should "feel lucky" shows an incredible lack of empathy on your part.
Sorry, actually I wasnt really following what was happening in this case, mostly because I don't care about anything at all related to Taylor Swift - but I do care about how we navigate the laws of AI likeness ownership.
Her personal circumstances suck - and it was insensitive for me to not mentino that, but I did so out of ignorance, because I dont care about taylor swift - not because I am lacking empathy.
SO, apologies for that. I stand my my point, and I hope this gets Swiftly resolved in a manner that beneficially covers all.
I work in application/product security and have managed WAFs for multi-billion dollar companies for many many years.
Move DNS to Cloudflare and put a few WAF rules on your site (managed challenge if bot score less than 2 / attack score == x). I doubt you'll even pay anything, and it will resolve a lot of your problems. Just test it before moving it to production please (maybe setup a test domain). Remember, a WAF is not an end-all be all, it's more of a band-aid. If you app isn't hardened to handle attacks, no amount of advanced WAF/bot protection will save it.
Selfhoster here. I use mutual TLS rules with CloudFlare's WAF to filter out everyone but my known-good callers. Works great. Since the only folks with access are my family, it was pretty easy to setup as well (everyone gets a unique cert that I can revoke if need be).
Usually I only manage internal facing applications these days, which makes the attack surface greatly reduced compare to public ones.
But since you seem to have a lot of knowledge in this area. Have you manage solutions which also includes infrastructure in Azure combined with Cloudflare?
And if so, any suggestions on things people usually miss? except for the usual stuff of OWASP and what not
Yes, that's just what the internet needs is even more websites centralized behind Cloudflare. Why do we even bother with TLS anymore if we're going to give them unencrypted access to practically all of our internet traffic.
Hacker news is so funny, they complain about the amount of power we've allowed Google, Amazon, and Microsoft to have, and then go right around and recommend putting everything behind Cloudflare.
Once Cloudflare starts using attestation to block anyone not on Chrome/iOS Safari it'll be too late to do anything about it.
Can you please not post in the flamewar style? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You're welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully but it needs to be within the rules. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
We should be suggesting self hosted and decentralized solutions to website hosting and file hosting.
On that note, does anyone have any secure methods of providing serving a file from your computer to anyone with a phone/computer that doesn't require them downloading/installing something new? Just a password or something? Magic-wormhole almost seems great, but it requires the client to install wormhole (on a computer, not phone), and then type specific commands along with the password.
> Once Cloudflare starts using attestation to block anyone not on Chrome/iOS Safari it'll be too late to do anything about it.
That's just plain bs...
Eg
1) they have customers and their customers want protection, with minimal downsides.
2) Cloudflare is the only one with support for Tor. I'm 100% sure you didn't knew that.
What "examples" do you have to blame them for something they aren't doing? Based on what?
I'm getting tired of people blaming Cloudflare for providing a service that no one else can provide for free to small website owners => DDOS protection.
Could you please stop breaking the site guidelines? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
You're of course welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully while staying within the rules.
Which circumvents the bad reputation of certain exit nodes:
> Due to the behavior of some individuals using the Tor network (spammers, distributors of malware, attackers), the IP addresses of Tor exit nodes may earn a bad reputation, elevating their Cloudflare threat score.
> Hacker news is so funny, they complain about the amount of power we've allowed Google, Amazon, and Microsoft to have, and then go right around and recommend putting everything behind Cloudflare.
It’s almost as if those saying contradictory things are actually different people despite being on the same website. But it can’t be that, surely? Truly a perplexing phenomenon that I hope someone can one day explain.
Fair, although I know quite a few people that hold both of these opinions simultaneously because I've met them in person. It's only after I point out their hypocrisy do they even realize what a danger Cloudflare poses to the free and open internet.
I suspect it's because hating on Google is in vogue, and so is recommending Cloudflare.
I'm going to try to provide / justify my potentially hypocritical viewpoint:
I use Cloudflare (free tier) in front of the very few and almost entirely unused websites that I run. I believe that the service they provide is useful for protecting the IP addresses of the servers on which the content is hosted, whilst also providing some amount of protection from malicious traffic.
I also agree that centralisation of services is a big problem for the future of the internet.
My position is that, whilst there seem to be increasing voices / examples of Cloudflare's (potential in) acting against the nebulous notion of "spirit of the internet", for me they certainly haven't reached the "evil" stage. I'm also of the understanding that it's Cloudflare customers that choose to block access from Tor or VPS IP address ranges and / or add Captcha's or other bothersome verification. True Cloudflare enable it and make it possible, but the administrators of the website that you're trying to visit have made the choice to make it more difficult for you to access their content; not Cloudflare themselves.
I would prefer there to be similar-scale alternatives to Cloudflare as a kind of a middle-ground decentralisation of centralisation. I'm sure there are alternatives, but I'm not yet motivated enough to even consider starting the research process.
If Cloudflare start selling visitor analytics to data brokers, however, very fast goodbye.
I have my local sync'd to my cloud storage and just pull it down if/when I need it. I'll just email/text people around me if they don't have airdrop compatibility.
For videos, yeah. When I'm in a room with friends, and one of them is already connected to their TV, it's much quicker to airdrop a large video file (say, 500MB) than it is to send it up to the Internet and have them download it. Aside from the better bandwidth, it's also much faster from the time I tap "Share" to the time it's appearing on their device.
For gifs or a funny photo or whatever, yeah I'll just text it.
I'm trying to learn how to use Tiktok (yes, I know, I'm sorry) and other social media and cross-posting isn't really great and some platforms pretty much force you to post from mobile devices or vice versa (Tiktok, Instagram for mobile, LinkedIn for desktop web), and I need to pass source videos from mobile to editors on PC and back and forth for posting on the different media.. It's a big of a mess, I'm kinda sure there are crossposting services out there already, but it works for me so /shrug!
One thing that it beats the cloud / centralized sync on is because the connection is direct between devices when the initial transfer is completed the file is completely there on the other device. With a cloud type of sync you do the transfer twice. I've seen stack up on large media or with the structure of cloud services pricing making it expensive depending on how your workflow is setup with inside and outside parties. For example, Dropbox deduction from all parties' storage limits not just the sharer.
You can also point Syncthing at a local sync of Dropbox or Google drive and then forward the files to other recipients from that for some purposes.
Sounds much more painful than dropping them in iCloud / Google Drive / Dropbox, as you have to send, accept, save, switch to app, upload instead of just going to the app, select file from cloud storage, upload.
Especially when you might want to upload from multiple devices.
Yes I do. I'm often moving files between two Macs and sometimes my iPhone. I have a few important documents and maybe 100 photos backed up in my free google drive storage, everything else is stored locally.
Email/Text has very small files size limits so that's not an option for me.
