Github is banning copies of 'deepfakes' porn app DeepNude
GitHub is banning code from DeepNude, the app that used AI to create fake nude pictures of women. Motherboard, which first reported on DeepNude last month, confirmed that the Microsoft-owned software development platform won't allow DeepNude projects. GitHub told Motherboard that the code violated its rules against "sexually obscene content," and it's removed multiple repositories, including one that was officially run by DeepNude's creator.
DeepNude was originally a paid app that created nonconsensual nude pictures of women using technology similar to AI "deepfakes." The development team shut it down after Motherboard's report, saying that "the probability that people will misuse it is too high." However, as we noted last week, copies of the app were still accessible online — including on GitHub.
Late that week, the DeepNude team followed suit by uploading the core algorithm (but not the actual app interface) to the platform. "The reverse engineering of the app was already on GitHub. It no longer makes sense to hide the source code," wrote the team on a now-deleted page. "DeepNude uses an interesting method to solve a typical AI problem, so it could be useful for researchers and developers working in other fields such as fashion, cinema, and visual effects."
Also at The Register, Vice, and Fossbytes.
Previously: "Deep Nude" App Removed By Developers After Brouhaha
Related: AI-Generated Fake Celebrity Porn Craze "Blowing Up" on Reddit
Discord Takes Down "Deepfakes" Channel, Citing Policy Against "Revenge Porn"
My Struggle With Deepfakes
Deep Fakes Advance to Only Needing a Single Two Dimensional Photograph
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @06:35AM (4 children)
I can't blame you for not reading the Acceptable use [github.com] section** beforehand, neither do I, but doing it would have stopped you short from thinking "GitHub == open hosting provider" or, indeed, that an "open hosting provider" refrain from imposing any limits.
---
** or, is it "sexion" in the context?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday July 11 2019, @07:16AM (3 children)
None of the restrictions in the AUP would appear to apply in this case. Code of academic interest was posted in a repo. That is not obscene. Well, it shouldn't be. Heaven knows there's a backlash against science among many in the upper echelons...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @07:37AM (2 children)
Are you sure? Speaking for myself, I'd like a citation.
All I could find: the origin of TFA is actually Motherboard/Vice [vice.com] (the others just cite that one).
They say
Unfortunately, that and the rest of TFA say nothing on the line of "there were deleted repos that didn't have any other content except code of academic interest ".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Thursday July 11 2019, @07:51AM (1 child)
When I read a sentence like that it leaves the impression that the github repo was being used to store images of pornography not a collection of words and symbols that can produce pornographic content. So lets see what M-W thinks of obscene:
disgusting to the senses
I don't think that one quite cuts it though I think 'disgusting to mind' would work.
abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity
Now we are starting to get pretty damn warm.
containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage
Ring that bell!
repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles
Another bingo here.
so excessive as to be offensive
Really depends on who you are for that one I think. In fact all of that really depends on who you are, your moral code, and the culture you were brought up in. But it's Github's show, they get to decide what is and is not obscene, and there is no appeal. That's that.
I still think it's contrary to opensource principles.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2019, @08:07AM
But I don't see GitHub as ever making a promise to uphold opensource principles above anything else.
It's a commercial entity, their foremost duty is to their shareholders.
Whenever expectations are not met, one will need to critically examine both sides. It may be a failure to deliver to what was agreed is expected, but it well may be a case of overinflated expectations based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford