The use of artificial intelligence technology to create non-consensual nude photos of women has taken a new turn, as it is now being employed to cover up women and make their clothing less revealing.

Conservative figures like Ian Miles Cheong have shared examples online that have gone viral. One of Cheong’s posts showcased an AI-altered image of Isla David, a sex worker and sex educator from Canada. In the manipulated image, David was depicted wearing a modest knee-length white dress and surrounded by fake children. Her body was also edited to appear smaller. Alongside the image, Cheong wrote, “When given pictures of thirst traps, AI imagines what could’ve been if they’d been raised by strong fathers.” This post has garnered over 7 million views, although Cheong did not respond to a request for comment.

The original photo featured David posing with a glass of whiskey in a sheer white shirt and underwear, without any children present.

Many other viral posts have emerged showcasing similar practices. One account dedicated to this AI trend, known as “DignifAI,” has gathered more than 28,500 followers since it started posting on January 31. The account directly responds to women whose photos it has manipulated, sharing the edited images of them along with mocking captions like “keep your dignity.”

While the technology has often been used to generate nude images of women, well-known individuals such as Taylor Swift and high school-age girls worldwide have become victims. However, David explained to NBC News that the AI-altered image of her was also an attempt to shame and humiliate her.

According to David, the intention behind this technology goes beyond whether women like Taylor Swift deny access to their nude bodies or individuals like herself who willingly share access to their nude bodies. It serves as a tool to ensure that women never have sole autonomy over their bodies and images online.

The specific AI tools employed to create these photos are unclear, and it is uncertain whether creators are adapting various AI tools for this purpose. One website associated with this practice directs creators to an AI app originally designed for women to try on clothes virtually before making a purchase.

David, who learned about Cheong’s post from a follower, pointed out that the AI-altered image of her also included a third arm and six toes. She regarded Cheong’s post and caption as an act of humiliation towards her and her family. Furthermore, she emphasized that this technology poses existential threats to women online. David has been actively searching the internet for reposts of the edited images and informing her family about potential online mentions. She discovered these manipulated images of herself being circulated on 4Chan, where 404 Media reported the images originated before finding their way to other platforms.

The emergence of AI-generated images, portraying sexually liberated women dressed modestly and placed in fabricated scenes of domestic child-rearing, aligns with the growing “tradwife” movement. This movement romanticizes a return to traditional gender roles reminiscent of the 1950s. While some women embrace this traditional aesthetic, nonconforming women are being coerced into the role of submissive mother and wife through AI manipulation.

Mike Stabile, the director of public affairs for the Free Speech Coalition, which advocates for the adult industry, describes this practice as a form of propaganda that is detached from reality. Stabile argues that it is ultimately about controlling how women are represented in society, implying that women cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies, clothing, tattoos, etc. He adds that this infantilization leads men to believe they have the authority to make such decisions on behalf of women.

David firmly stated that she did not consent to her body being distorted into a conservative idealized version of herself. She did not give permission for her image to be used to fulfill this fantasy of “fixing” her.

While AI technology can have positive applications for sex workers, such as managing direct messages or creating storyboards, David highlights its potential for content theft and exploitation. She argues that AI poses a threat to the livelihood and bodily autonomy of both sex workers and nonconsenting women, making it a terrifying time to be a woman on the internet. It often feels like a no-win situation.

Pros:

• Creative freedom: AI image manipulation without consent allows artists and designers to explore new creative possibilities, enabling them to transform and enhance images in ways that were previously unimaginable.
• Time-saving: AI algorithms can automate the process of image manipulation, saving time for professionals who need to edit large volumes of images quickly.
• Accessibility: With AI image manipulation, anyone with basic computer skills can edit and enhance images without the need for advanced technical knowledge or expensive software.

Cons:

• Privacy concerns: AI image manipulation without consent raises serious privacy concerns, as personal or sensitive images could be manipulated without the subject’s knowledge or permission.
• Misuse and deception: Unauthorized AI image manipulation can be used for malicious purposes, such as spreading fake or manipulated information. This can result in misinformation, deception, and harm to individuals or organizations.
• Ethical implications: Manipulating images without consent raises ethical questions about consent, ownership, and the rights of individuals to control their own image. It can also contribute to the erosion of trust in visual media.