180 incidents on record · 2026 Headlights Incident reports by Ellie Harris · Melbourne
10 new this week Library last updated 30 August 2026
← The incident library
HD-INC-143
Consumer AI · United States · 2022 · Sexualised images produced without consent

A viral app turned selfies into AI portraits, and produced sexualised images its users had not asked for

By Ellie Harris · Filed Magic Avatars went viral in November and December 2022

Alleged: Prisma Labs (Lensa); built on Stable Diffusion developed or deployed the AI system implicated in this incident. Details are drawn from public reports; parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing not established by an official finding.

A viral app turned selfies into AI portraits, and produced sexualised images its users had not asked for

What happened

It was reported that in late 2022, an app called Lensa, made by Prisma Labs, went viral for its Magic Avatars feature, which turned a handful of selfies into stylised AI portraits. Alongside the fantasy and artistic images people expected, some users reported receiving sexualised portraits they had not asked for, including topless, near-nude and highly suggestive images.

Women reported the issue far more often than men, with several saying the app appeared to sexualise them regardless of the photos they uploaded. In one widely reported example, MIT Technology Review reporter Melissa Heikkilä, who is of Asian heritage, wrote that out of 100 avatars generated from her selfies, 16 were topless and another 14 showed her in revealing clothing or overtly sexualised poses.

Lensa’s Magic Avatars feature was built using Stable Diffusion, an image generation model trained on vast collections of images scraped from the internet. Critics argued that models trained on unfiltered internet data can inherit biases, including the tendency to sexualise women, and warned that similar technology could be misused to create sexual or nude-looking images from ordinary photographs, including images taken from social media.

Prisma Labs said the behaviour reflected biases present in the training data used by Stable Diffusion, that explicit uploads were prohibited under its terms of service, and that it had adjusted parts of the system to reduce biased results. The company also said that deliberately trying to generate explicit content was against its intended use. Critics argued that these safeguards were not sufficient for a product that could generate images from anyone’s face.

What an auditable version would have shown

An auditable version of a tool like this would show exactly what testing was carried out before it was released. It would record whether the model had been tested on ordinary selfies from women and men of different ages and backgrounds, whether it produced unwanted sexualised images, and whether the safeguards designed to stop those outputs actually worked. Instead of discovering the problem through millions of users after launch, the company would have had evidence of what the system did before it reached the public.

Where the gap was

The problem wasn’t that the model could create artistic portraits. The problem was that it could also generate sexualised versions of real people who had not consented to being portrayed that way. Models trained on large collections of internet images can inherit the biases contained in that data. Without strong safeguards, those biases can appear in the images they generate. In this case, there was little separating those learned patterns from a user’s selfie.

What governance should have looked like

A system that creates images of real people should treat sexual or nude depictions as a hard boundary, not a preference. Before release, it should be tested to make sure ordinary selfies cannot be turned into sexualised images without explicit consent. If the system attempts to cross that boundary, the image should simply not be generated. A ConstraintGate is designed to prevent those kinds of outputs regardless of the prompt or the input image. An AuthorityGate is designed to ensure the permissions behind a person’s likeness and how it may be used are established before the feature is released. Together they help ensure a fun portrait app doesn’t create images of a person that they did not agree to.

The reference implementation of ConstraintGate and AuthorityGate is open source. It lives at github.com/saffronandindia/headlights-oss, Apache 2.0 licensed, free for any company to install. The repository is public now.

Sources

The mailing list

Fresh incident reports every week. One email to match.

We add new incidents to the library regularly, and send a single short email each week with what's new. The library stays free and open; this is just how you keep up with it.

No tracking. Unsubscribe in one click.

The record

An auditable system would have produced a signed, tamper-evident record the moment this happened: what the system did, the version that did it, the basis it acted on, and the action taken, and Prisma Labs (Lensa); built on Stable Diffusion could have produced it on demand.

This is the record the system as deployed did not produce in a signed, auditable form.

What this teaches
Capture what happened when it happens
What the system did, the version that did it, the basis it acted on, and the action taken, recorded at the moment, not reconstructed after.
Sign it, so no one has to trust the record-keeper
A tamper-evident entry. Edit it later and the signature breaks. The record does not ask for the benefit of the doubt.
Make it verifiable by anyone
A court, a regulator, a customer's lawyer can check the record themselves, without taking the company, or us, at our word.

Headlights summarises publicly reported AI incidents. All summaries are independently written, attributed to their original sources, and intended for research and educational purposes. Allegations are identified as such until established through official findings.

This report is based on the sources listed above and reflects information available at the time of review; later developments may not be captured. Where a person is described as charged with or alleged to have done something, that allegation is unproven unless a conviction or a court or regulatory finding is stated. Headlights publishes journalism and commentary, not legal advice.

Want to write back?

Direct to my inbox.

ellie@useheadlights.com →