you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (11 children)

Controversial opinion: If there is no real child whose likeness is used to produce the image, then there is no real victim. The art that is created is of the same quality as a drawing from imagination.

The other problem with illegalizing content on the basis of whether it's CSAM is the eternal question of whether an unreal likeness can be said to even have an age. How would you be able to prove with certainty that an AI-generated likeness was below the age of consent? You would think it would be obvious, but there is a huge gray area here. If the protection weren't fairly strong, I 100% guarantee that conservative Bible-thumpers would take advantage of the opportunity to ban all ai pornographic content, and then move on to real porn after that.

In addition, Banning AI material we might be able to interpret as CSAM does nothing to protect real children. There is no empirical proof that any kind of porn has a real, independent effect on people's sexual behavior.

Edit with addendum: In addition, civil rights are a matter of principle. It doesn't matter whether the presence of AI generated material makes the job of policing more difficult. The Bill of Rights was created to try to make sure that we don't become slaves. Just because something is highly offensive to my own tastes doesn't mean that the civil rights of the person who offends me disappear.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    What do you think it was trained on to be able to create child porn? Yes, children were harmed and will continue to be harmed to “improve the model”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    The model knows what kids looks like and it knows what porn looks like. It is now more complex than the thought experiment, “the Chinese Room” because it can interpolate between two things it knows rather than basic request and response.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Were they also trained on the vast quantity of media of gymnasts made out of pasta for them to be able to create videos of that?

    One of the main points of GenAI is the ability to smush multiple concepts together. There are plenty of training data of children that are in swimwear, or just literally naked that has nothing to do with CP, and there's boatloads naked adults and of course, porn, it can successfully combine them together even if there was no actual CP in there whatsoever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    And given the internet's proclivity toward legal "teen/jailbait" porn where the models are of age but focus heavily on child-like features/poses/clothing/etc, there's literally millions of high-resolution photos that an inference machine could easily stitch together a CSAM image using nothing but legal source images.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago

    What? Even if you're right that CSAM was included in training data (and that's highly debated), it would absolutely have been inadvertent and due to the Internet dragnet style of training. I don't know where you get the idea that AI companies would ask for more CSAM and drive up demand to "improve" their model.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    As it has been said there was clearly some way it was trained. But for the moment let’s set that argument aside because it has been argued. (Children were hurt in its creation)

    What do you think will happen as more creeps do it and use it. They will develop a taste for it and will eventually need the real thing. It will end with kids being hurt.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Arguing for the legal production of CSAM is fucked up, even if it's by an AI.

    Also the article specifically states:

    AI-generated CSAM may also present other challenges not raised by the government in this appeal. For example, researchers have found that "a major dataset used for training image-generating AI contained hundreds of CSAM images." Thus, unlike the virtual CSAM at issue in Free Speech Coalition, the market for AI-generated virtual CSAM images may impact the demand for actual CSAM on which the AI models can train.

    You're wrong. We absolutely can draw the line here. And yes, it does harm children. allowing people to create, possess, and distribute CSAM, even if it's AI-generated, will influence peoples willingness to act on their urges in real life, with real children. It's not a stretch to consider that linkage. What you're arguing for is shameful and disgusting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Some people say it cold help preventing acting on those urges, unfortunately there's no definitive answer especially because it's not an easy-to-test topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment