i think its 'barrier to entry'

photoshop took skills that not everyone has/had keeping the volume low.

these new generators require zero skill or technical ability so anyone can do it

Honestly? It was kind of shitty back then and is just as shitty nowadays.

I mean, I get why people do it. But in my honest opinion, it's still a blatant violation of that person's dignity, at least if it's distributed.

It's a bit of a blend of it has always been a big deal, and that it is indeed more of a big deal still now because of how easy, accessible, and believable the AI can be. Like even nowadays, Photoshop hits only one point of that triangle. But it was even less capable back in the day. It could hit half of one of those points at any given time.

Basically, a nude generated by a good AI has to be proven false. Because it doesn't always immediately seem as such at first. If you have seen obvious AI fakes, they are just that, obvious. There are many non-obvious ones that you might have seen and not known they were fake. That is, of course, assuming you have looked.

The other reason it can be more of a big deal now is that kids have been doing it of other kids. And since the results can be believable, the parents didn't know they were fake to start with. So it would blow up as if it was real before finding out it was AI. And anything involving that is gonna be a big deal.

Well, I think everyone has already covered that it was a big deal at the time, it simply wasn't something we could wipe out as a society.

And it's still a big deal.

However, I don't think anyone touched on why fake nudes, even ones that are obviously fake, or even labeled as fake by the creator are a problem.

It comes back to the entire idea of consent. That's for anyone, but women in particular are heavily sexualized, even well before they're women. There is a constant, unending pressure on women of knowing that they are going to be sexually objectified. It might not be every day, by everyone alive around them, but it is inescapable.

One can debate whether or not nudity should be a big deal, whether or not it is sexualized because of the rules a given culture has around nudity, but the hard truth is that nudity is sexualized. Ergo, images of a woman's body is something that they deserve to have control over access to. If someone consents to images being available, great! If they don't, then there's a problem.

Fakes, even obvious and declared fakes, violate that barrier of body autonomy. They directly ignore the person's wishes regarding their naked body.

The better the fake, the worse that violation is, because (as others said), once a fake is good enough, the subject of the fake is put in the position of having to deny it's them. They shouldn't have to ever be in that position, no matter who it is.

Even a porn performer should have the ability to be free of fakes because they didn't consent to those fakes. They also have a very valid claim on it infringing on their income as well. Now, I'm certain that legal fakes will someday be a thing. There will be contracts for likeness rights to produce fake porn. Bet on it. If I had free income, I would immediately invest in such an endeavor because I guarantee it will make money.

But, as things stand, fakes are no better than someone taking a picture through a window shade, or using infrared to sneak by clothing. It's digital, and it's fake, but it is the direct equivalent of violating someone's privacy and body autonomy.

That's why it's a big deal to begin with.

And, yeah, it is something that's here to stay, it's unavoidable. And someone is bound to comment that they wouldn't care. Great, good for you. That doesn't obligate others to not care too. But, put it to the test and provide a few pictures of yourself in your comment so that someone can make a fake nude of you, then plaster it online with zero context and labeled with at least your user name so everyone running across it can direct responses to it to you.

It's all about personal privacy, consent, and body autonomy.

Because previously if someone had the skills to get rich off the skill making convincing fake nudes we could arrest and punish them - people with similar skillsets would usually prefer more legitimate work.

Now some ass in his basement can crank them out and it's a futile game of whack-a-mole to kill them dead.

Because now, anyone can do it to anyone with zero effort and a single photo.

Sure, before anyone with decent Photoshop skills could put together a halfway decently convincing fake nude but its still significantly more effort and time than most would be bothered with and even then its fairly easy to spot and dispute a fake.

Most people weren't concerned if a celebrity's fake nudes were spread around before but now that a colleague, student, teacher, family member, or even a random member of the public could generate a convincing photo the threat has become far more real and far more conceivable

It was always a big deal. But back then it was often pretty obvious when it was a fake. It's getting harder and harder to tell.

It was a big deal back then, too, but a lot harder to police, and a lot more obvious that they were fakes.

Gillian Anderson fakes were real fuckin popular during the time the X-Files were on the air.

EDIT: Searching for women from the time talking about the phenomenon in the 90's is difficult because it mostly turns up... troves of fake nudes of these women. Of course.

It's always been a big deal, it just died down as Photoshop as a tool became normalized and people became accustomed to it as a tool.

I have a similar opininipn. People have been forging!/editing photographs and movies for as long as the technique existed.

Now any stupid kid can do it, the hard part with AI is actually not getting porn. If it can teach everyone that fake photo are a thing, and make nudes worthless (what's the point of a nude anyway ? Genitals looks like... Genitals)

If AI is so convincing, why would anyone care about nudes being controversial anymore? You can just assume it's always fake. If everything is fake, why would anyone care?

Because now teenagers can do it with very little effort whereas before it at least required a lot of time and skill

How do you prove it's not you in either case? Photoshop doesn't make a whole video of you fucking a sheep. But AI can and is actively being used that way. With Photoshop it was a matter of getting ahold of the file and inspecting it. Even the best Photoshop jobs have some key tells. Artifacting, layering, all kinds of shading and lighting, how big the file is, etc.

I want to add something. What if all the sudden it's your 12 year old daughter being portrayed in this fake? What if it's your mom? It would have been a big deal to you to have that image out there of your loved one back in the 90's or early 2000's. It's the same kind of big deal now but more widespread because it's so easy now. It's not okay to just use the image of someone in ways they didn't consent to. I have a similar issue with facial recognition regardless of the fact that it's used in public places where I have no control over it.

Doctored photos have always been a problem and, legally speaking, could lead to the faker being sued for defamation, depending on what was done with the person's image.

AI Photos are only part of the problem. Faking the voice is also possible, as is making "good enough" videos where you just change the head of the actual performer.

Another part of the problem is that this kind of stuff spreads like wildfire within groups (and it's ALWAYS groups where the victim is) and any voices stating that it's fake will be drowned by everyone else.

AI is much better. Photoshop was always a little off with size, angle, lighting, etc. Very easy to spot fakes.

In addition the the reduced skill barriers mentioned, the other side effect is the reduced time spent finding a matching photo and actually doing the work. Anyone can create it in their spare time, quickly and easily.