Preemptively plant evidence to frame anyone you want for any crimes you plan to commit. I hear police departments love cases where they can efficiently dispense looking for alternative suspects. But leave a dozen backup suspect shaggy dog crumb trails just in case. Judicial system take that!
I have no idea where deep fakes are taking us, but if we don't get a cryptographic proof of provenance, location (proof of network latency) and time stamp system working soon for all "evidence", journalistic photos, questionable selfies, nights alone at home nowhere near any crime scene, things are going to get very crazy.
Link?
(a song from a 60s toy ad. the sixth finger had invisible ink, a dart gun, the usual spy stuff)
That said, this defense would not save you for a bunch of reasons.
I see how this can lead to real problematic situations, but it's also so dumb, I don't think there will be any going back. I have no idea how we'll deal with this, I can't imagine we'll just accept that people have bodies and they don't need to be harrassed over it, but there must be a way and we'll find out.
The complexity of the algorithms involved in making images obscures that simple fact and enables a lot of hyperbolic nonsense and dangerous calls for use of force. There's no one being "undressed" here.
edit: you yourself argue for making generation illegal in a different thread up above.
The wars happen when nations disagree about borders. Those borders are represented by maps but luckily nation states don't confuse the two (except for political theater and posturing). The wars happen when the real physical objects go over the real physical borders not when a random person scribbles on a map.
I think my analogy holds up pretty well even with your stretching of the scenario.
For example, there is the sculpture of a nude Brittney Spears giving birth:
http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/contemporary/Con...
(NSFW: There is nudity).
Is there a difference between that and what an AI generates?
You can take a picture of a clothed teenager and it can be perfectly and socially acceptable. Or it can be potentially illegal, based on intent. The same with images taken of nude babies.
Are you creating nude art with the intent of celebrating the human form, or sexual objectification. If it's the latter, do you have consent?
Intent matters, and it will probably be the linchpin for the legality for these discussions.
What laws will be made attempting to stop what likely can't be stopped?
You might have some opportunity exploring a defamation action, but still, it's tenuous.
I don't have an answer, but I think we're looking at constitutional battles.
If we really shorten that, it could all fit into an url with a parameter pointing to the original, and nobody's distributing a specific image, they're all privately generated.
What these software programs do is something else entirely. They refactor the photo into something else which is not the same person in a naked state but an entirely fictional work of "art". It is analogous to posing in front of a painter fully clothed, and the painter applying anatomical knowledge and imagination to add artifacts (or even nudity) that never existed IRL.
