The rapid pace of AI image generation advancements has outpaced ethical contemplation of appropriate applications. As an AI expert concerned with both technological progress and human dignity, I believe we need an open discussion around redirecting this technology towards more constructive purposes.
Current Landscape
Innovations in deep learning over the past few years now allow AI systems to realistically replace clothing on human images. However, the majority of development and publicity so far focuses on nonconsensual use cases.
For example, Telegram chatbots that claim to unlimitedly remove clothes from photos without constraints, subscriptions or watermarks. Or paid services advertising completely stripping clothing from images of anyone.
The technical abilities now exist in these systems to violate personal privacy at scale. And some seek to profit from that capacity for harm.
Why This Matters
Individual consent – The ethical application of this technology depends fundamentally on each person depicted consenting to how their likeness gets altered or displayed, in all contexts. Violating consent causes direct dignity harms.
Cultural influence – More demand for nonconsensual use cases incentivizes more development resources allocated towards harm. Even indirectly enabling privacy violations through technology sets a detrimental precedent.
Vulnerable populations – The combination of realistic neural imagery with lack of consent disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups already facing disproportionate harassment issues. The priority should be to prevent exacerbating harm towards marginalized demographics.
Progress, Not Prohibition
Calling for an outright ban on further advancement ignores two realities:
Continued progress in AI generation abilities remains inevitable over time, absent extreme trade control interventions.
Constructive consent-based applications likely outweigh unconsensual uses on a net societal benefit analysis.
Instead I propose advocating that:
- Researchers, engineers, investors, and journalists responsibly direct the field towards positive use cases.
- Policymakers develop thoughtful regulations allowing consensual creative uses while prohibiting abuse.
- Platforms and web hosts enact stringent rules around image manipulation services allowed to operate on their infrastructure.
Redefining the Vision
What if the leading research and discussion around AI-based clothing replacement focused primarily on concepts like:
- Augmenting fashion design workflows
- Facilitating creative editorial photography Hertz
- Accelerating production of custom-fit CGI characters for games and movies
- Helping those with disabilities dress and undress easier
- Assisting in medical diagnosis where imaging requires exposing patient bodies
Guiding innovation towards pursuits that either enhance consensual entertainment or improve lives provides healthier development incentives while supporting human dignity in the process.
The Role of Responsibility
As consumers, do we carry a responsibility to be more selective regarding the types of AI applications we promote or criticize? Do we bear some societal duty to thoughtfully consider second-order effects our commentary might encourage if it predominantly supports violating consent for the sake of realism?
As researchers, what affirmative efforts could the machine learning community take to highlight the impressive technical feats accomplished in this domain while better framing it as a springboard for more constructive goals? Are there proactive initiatives that could reshape the narrative?
Rather than unconsensual use cases, I believe emphasis belongs on the incredible ways AI generation stands to enhance creative industries based on willing participation. By coming together to redefine the dominant framing, we can progress responsibly.
