Mhm I have mixed feelings about this. I know that this entire thing is fucked up but isn’t it better to have generated stuff than having actual stuff that involved actual children?
A problem that I see getting brought up is that generated AI images makes it harder to notice photos of actual victims, making it harder to locate and save them
And doesn’t the AI learn from real images?
It does learn from real images, but it doesn’t need real images of what it’s generating to produce related content.
As in, a network trained with no exposure to children is unlikely to be able to easily produce quality depictions of children. Without training on nudity, it’s unlikely to produce good results there as well.
However, if it knows both concepts it can combine them readily enough, similar to how you know the concept of “bicycle” and that of “Neptune” and can readily enough imagine “Neptune riding an old fashioned bicycle around the sun while flaunting it’s tophat”.Under the hood, this type of AI is effectively a very sophisticated “error correction” system. It changes pixels in the image to try to “fix it” to matching the prompt, usually starting from a smear of random colors (static noise).
That’s how it’s able to combine different concepts from a wide range of images to create things it’s never seen.Basically if I want to create … (I’ll use a different example for obvious reasons, but I’m sure you could apply it to the topic)
… “an image of a miniature denium airjet with Taylor Swift’s face on the side of it”, the AI generators can despite no such thing existing in the training data. It may take multiple attempts and effort with the text prompt to get exactly what you’re looking for, but you could eventually get a convincing image.
AI takes loads of preexisting data on airplanes, T.Swift, and denium to combine it all into something new.
True, but by their very nature their generations tend to create anonymous identities, and the sheer amount of them would make it harder for investigators to detect pictures of real, human victims (which can also include indicators of crime location.
Well that, and the idea of cathartic relief is increasingly being dispelled. Behaviour once thought to act as a pressure relief for harmful impulsive behaviour is more than likely just a pattern of escalation.
Source? From what I’ve heard, recent studies are showing the opposite.
Catharsis theory predicts that venting anger should get rid of it and should therefore reduce subsequent aggression. The present findings, as well as previous findings, directly contradict catharsis theory (e.g., Bushman et al., 1999; Geen & Quanty, 1977). For reduc- ing anger and aggression, the worst possible advice to give people is to tell them to imagine their provocateur’s face on a pillow or punching bag as they wallop it, yet this is precisely what many pop psychologists advise people to do. If followed, such advice will only make people angrier and more aggressive.
But there’s a lot more studies who have essentially said the same thing. The cathartic hypothesis is mainly a byproduct of the Freudian era of psychology, where hypothesis mainly just sounded good to someone on too much cocaine.
Do you have a source of studies showing the opposite?
your source is exclusively about aggressive behavior…
it uses the term “arousal”, which is not referring to sexual arousal, but rather a state of heightened agitation.
provide an actual source in support of your claim, or stop spreading misinformation.
Lol, my source is about the cathartic hypothesis. So your theory is that it doesn’t work with anger, but does work for sexual deviancy?
Do you have a source that supports that?
you made the claim that the cathartic hypothesis is poorly supported by evidence, which you source supports, but is not relevant to the topic at hand.
your other claim is that sexual release follows the same patterns as aggression. that’s a pretty big claim! i’d like to see a source that supports that claim.
otherwise you’ve just provided a source that provides sound evidence, but is also entirely off-topic…
Let’s see here, listen to my therapist who has decades of real experience or a study from over 20 years ago?
Sorry bud, I know who I’m going with on this and it ain’t your academic.
Let’s see here, listen to my therapist who has decades of real experience or a study from over 20 years ago?
Your therapist is still utilizing Freudian psychoanalysis?
Well, if age is a factor in your opinion about the validity of the care you receive, I have some bad news for you…
You’re still using 5,000 year old Armenian shoes?
Of course not. Stop being reductive.
Yes, but I’m too lazy to sauce everything again. If it’s not in my saved comments someone else will have to.
E: couldn’t find it on my reddit either. I have too many saved comments lol.
The arrest is only a positive. Allowing pedophiles to create AI CP is not a victimless crime. As others point out it muddies the water for CP of real children, but it also potentially would allow pedophiles easier ways to network in the open (if the images are legal they can easily be platformed and advertised), and networking between abusers absolutely emboldens them and results in more abuse.
As a society we should never allow the normalization of sexualizing children.
Interesting. What do you think about drawn images? Is there a limit to how will the artist can be at drawing/painting? Stick figures vs life like paintings. Interesting line to consider.
If it was photoreal and difficult to distinguish from real photos? Yes, it’s exactly the same.
And even if it’s not photo real, communities that form around drawn child porn are toxic and dangerous as well. Sexualizing children is something I am 100% against.
It feels like driving these people into the dark corners of the internet is worse than allowing them to collect in clearnet spaces where drawn csam is allowed.
I’m in favor of specific legislation criminalizing drawn CSAM. It’s definitely less severe than photographic CSAM, and it’s definitely harmful.
networking between abusers absolutely emboldens them and results in more abuse.
Is this proven or a common sense claim you’re making?
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a mixture of the two. It’s kind of like if you surround yourself with criminals regularly, you’re more likely to become one yourself. Not to say it’s a 100% given, just more probable.
So… its just a claim they’re making and you’re hoping it has actual backing.
I’m not hoping anything, haha wtf? The comment above me asked if it was a proven statement or common sense and I said I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s both. I felt confident that if I googled it, there would more than likely be studies backing up a common sense statement like that, as I’ve read in the past how sending innocent people or people who committed minor misdemeanors to prison has influenced them negatively to commit crimes they might not have otherwise.
And look at that, there are academic articles that do back it up:
Negative Social Environment
Who we’re around can influence who we are. Just being in a high-crime neighborhood can increase our chances of turning to crime ourselves.4 But being in the presence of criminals is not the only way our environment can affect our behaviors. Research reveals that simply living in poverty increases our likelihood of being incarcerated. When we’re having trouble making ends meet, we’re under intense stress and more likely to resort to crime.
https://www.law.ac.uk/resources/blog/is-prison-effective/
Time in prison can actually make someone more likely to commit crime — by further exposing them to all sorts of criminal elements.
Etc, etc.
Turns out that your dominant social group and environment influences your behavior, what a shocking statement.
But you didn’t say you had proof with your comment, you said it was probable. Basically saying its common sense that its proven.
Why are you getting aggressive about actually having to provide proof about something when saying its obvious?
Also, that seems to imply that locking up people for AI offenses would then encourage truly reprehensible behavior by linking them with those who already engage in it.
Almost like lumping people together as one big group, instead of having levels of grey area, means people are more likely to just go all in instead of sticking to something more morally defensible.
Because it’s a casual discussion, I think it’s obnoxious when people constantly demand sources to be cited in online comments section when they could easily look it up themselves. This isn’t some academic or formal setting.
And I disagree, only the second source mentioned prisons explicitly. The first source mentions social environments as well. So it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. Additionally, even if you consider the second source, that source mentions punishment reforms to prevent that undesirable side effect from occuring.
I find it ironic that you criticized me for not citing sources and then didn’t read the sources. But, whatever. Typical social media comments section moment.
The far right in France normalized its discourses and they are now at the top of the votes.
Also in France, people talked about pedophilia at the TV in the 70s, 80s and at the beginning of the 90s. It was not just once in a while. It was frequent and open without any trouble. Writers would casually speak about sexual relationships with minors.
The normalization will blur the limits between AI and reality for the worse. It will also make it more popular.
The other point is also that people will always ends with the original. Again, politic is a good example. Conservatives try to mimic the far right to gain votes but at the end people vote for the far right…
And, someone has a daughter. A pedophile takes a picture of her without asking and ask an AI to produce CP based on her. I don’t want to see things like this.
Actually, that’s not quite as clear.
The conventional wisdom used to be, (normal) porn makes people more likely to commit sexual abuse (in general). Then scientists decided to look into that. Slowly, over time, they’ve become more and more convinced that (normal) porn availability in fact reduces sexual assault.
I don’t see an obvious reason why it should be different in case of CP, now that it can be generated.
I wonder if religiosity is correlated.
It should be different because people can not have it. It is disgusting, makes them feel icky and thats just why it has to be bad. Conventional wisdom sometimes really is just convential idiocracy.
Did we memory hole the whole ‘known CSAM in training data’ thing that happened a while back? When you’re vacuuming up the internet you’re going to wind up with the nasty stuff, too. Even if it’s not a pixel by pixel match of the photo it was trained on, there’s a non-zero chance that what it’s generating is based off actual CSAM. Which is really just laundering CSAM.
IIRC it was something like a fraction of a fraction of 1% that was CSAM, with the researchers identifying the images through their hashes but they weren’t actually available in the dataset because they had already been removed from the internet.
Still, you could make AI CSAM even if you were 100% sure that none of the training images included it since that’s what these models are made for - being able to combine concepts without needing to have seen them before. If you hold the AI’s hand enough with prompt engineering, textual inversion and img2img you can get it to generate pretty much anything. That’s the power and danger of these things.
What % do you think was used to generate the CSAM, though? Like, if 1% of the images were cups it’s probably drawing on some of that to generate images of cups.
And yes, you could technically do this with no CSAM training material, but we don’t know if that’s what the AI is doing because the image sources used to train it were mass scraped from the internet. They’re using massive amounts of data without filtering it and are unable to say with certainty whether or not there is CSAM in the training material.
I didn’t know that, my bad.
Fair but depressing, it seems like it barely registered in the news cycle.
Yeah, it’s very similar to the “is loli porn unethical” debate. No victim, it could supposedly help reduce actual CSAM consumption, etc… But it’s icky so many people still think it should be illegal.
There are two big differences between AI and loli though. The first is that AI would supposedly be trained with CSAM to be able to generate it. An artist can create loli porn without actually using CSAM references. The second difference is that AI is much much easier for the layman to create. It doesn’t take years of practice to be able to create passable porn. Anyone with a decent GPU can spin up a local instance, and be generating within a few hours.
In my mind, the former difference is much more impactful than the latter. AI becoming easier to access is likely inevitable, so combatting it now is likely only delaying the inevitable. But if that AI is trained on CSAM, it is inherently unethical to use.
Whether that makes the porn generated by it unethical by extension is still difficult to decide though, because if artists hate AI, then CSAM producers likely do too. Artists are worried AI will put them out of business, but then couldn’t the same be said about CSAM producers? If AI has the potential to run CSAM producers out of business, then it would be a net positive in the long term, even if the images being created in the short term are unethical.
Just a point of clarity, an AI model capable of generating csam doesn’t necessarily have to be trained on csam.
That honestly brings up more questions than it answers.
Why is that? The whole point of generative AI is that it can combine concepts.
You train it on the concept of a chair using only red chairs. You train it on the color red, and the color blue. With this info and some repetition, you can have it output a blue chair.
The same applies to any other concepts. Larger, smaller, older, younger. Man, boy, woman, girl, clothed, nude, etc. You can train them each individually, gradually, and generate things that then combine these concepts.
Obviously this is harder than just using training data of what you want. It’s slower, it takes more effort, and results are inconsistent, but they are results. And then, you curate the most viable of the images created this way to train a new and refined model.
Yeah, there are photorealistic furry photo models, and I have yet to meet an anthropomorphic dragon IRL.
I think one of the many problems with AI generated CSAM is that as AI becomes more advanced it will become increasingly difficult for authorities to tell the difference between what was AI generated and what isn’t.
Banning all of it means authorities don’t have to sift through images trying to decipher between the two. If one image is declared to be AI generated and it’s not…well… that doesn’t help the victims or create less victims. It could also make the horrible people who do abuse children far more comfortable putting that stuff out there because it can hide amongst all the AI generated stuff. Meaning authorities will have to go through far more images before finding ones with real victims in it. All of it being illegal prevents those sorts of problems.
And that’s a good point! Luckily it’s still (usually) fairly easy to identify AI generated images. But as they get more advanced, that will likely become harder and harder to do.
Maybe some sort of required digital signatures for AI art would help; Something like a public encryption key in the metadata, that can’t be falsified after the fact. Anything without that known and trusted AI signature would by default be treated as the real deal.
But this would likely require large scale rewrites of existing image formats, if they could even support it at all. It’s the type of thing that would require people way smarter than myself. But even that feels like a bodged solution to a problem that only exists because people suck. And if it required registration with a certificate authority (like an HTTPS certificate does) then it would be a hurdle for local AI instances to jump through. Because they would need to get a trusted certificate before they could sign their images.
But it’s icky so many people still think it should be illegal.
Imo, not the best framework for creating laws. Essentially, it’s an appeal to emotion.
so many people still think it should be illegal
It is illegal. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon
I wasn’t arguing about current laws. I was simply arguing about public perception, and whether the average person believes it should be illegal. There’s a difference between legality and ethicality. Something unethical can be legal, and something illegal can be ethical.
Weed is illegal, but public perception says it shouldn’t be.
Weed is illegal, but public perception says it shouldn’t be.
Alcohol is worse then weed, yet alcohol is not banned.
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
Why are you assuming everyone lives in the US? Your article even admits that it is legal elsewhere (Japan).
This is a better one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors
Everybody is American. They just don’t know it yet.
Gospel of the Jesus
I have trouble with this because it’s like 90% grey area. Is it a pic of a real child but inpainted to be nude? Was it a real pic but the face was altered as well? Was it completely generated but from a model trained on CSAM? Is the perceived age of the subject near to adulthood? What if the styling makes it only near realistic (like very high quality CG)?
I agree with what the FBI did here mainly because there could be real pictures among the fake ones. However, I feel like the first successful prosecution of this kind of stuff will be a purely moral judgement of whether or not the material “feels” wrong, and that’s no way to handle criminal misdeeds.
If not trained on CSAM or in painted but fully generated, I can’t really think of any other real legal arguments against it except for: “this could be real”. Which has real merit, but in my eyes not enough to prosecute as if it were real. Real CSAM has very different victims and abuse so it needs different sentencing.
Everything is 99% grey area. If someone tells you something is completely black and white you should be suspicious of their motives.
You know whats better? Having none of this shit
Did you just fix menal health?
Yeah as I also said.
Yeah would be nice. Unfortunelately it isn’t so and it’s never going to. Chasing after people generating distasteful AI pictures is not making the world a better place.
Better for whom and why?
Apparently he sent some to an actual minor.
It reminds me of the story of the young man who realized he had an attraction to underage children and didn’t want to act on it, yet there were no agencies or organizations to help him, and that it was only after crimes were committed that anyone could get help.
I see this fake cp as only a positive for those people. That it might make it difficult to find real offenders is a terrible reason against.
Better only means less worse in this case, I guess
I think the point is that child attraction itself is a mental illness and people indulging it even without actual child contact need to be put into serious psychiatric evaluation and treatment.
Yes, but the perp showed the images to a minor.
Removed by mod
No?
Is everything completely black and white for you?
The system isn’t perfect, especially where we prioritize punishing people over rehabilitation. Would you rather punish everyone equally, emphasizing that if people are going to risk the legal implications (which, based on legal systems the world over, people are going to do) they might as well just go for the real thing anyways?
You don’t have to accept it as morally acceptable, but you don’t have to treat them as completely equivalent either.
There’s gradations of questionable activity. Especially when there’s no real victims involved. Treating everything exactly the same is, frankly speaking, insane. Its like having one punishment for all illegal behavior. Murder someone? Death penalty. Rob them? Straight to the electric chair. Jaywalking? Better believe you’re getting the needle.
Removed by mod
I got your back here.
Ironically, You ask if everything is completely black and white for someone without accepting that there’s nuance to the very issue you’re calling out. And assuming that “everything”- a very black and white term, is not very nuanced, is it?
No, not EVERYTHING, but some things. And this is one of those things. Both forms should be illegal. Period. No nuance, no argument, NO grey area.
This does not mean that nuance doesn’t exist. It just means that some believe that it SHOULDN’T exist within the paradigm of child porn.
It’s better to have neither.
This mentality smells of “just say no” for drugs or “just don’t have sex” for abortions. This is not the ideal world and we have to find actual plans/solutions to deal with the situation. We can’t just cover our ears and hope people will stop
It feeds and evolves a disorder which in turn increases risks of real life abuse.
But if AI generated content is to be considered illegal, so should all fictional content.
Or, more likely, it feeds and satisfies a disorder which in turn decreases risk of real life abuse.
Making it illegal so far helped nothing, just like with drugs
That’s not how these addictive disorders works… they’re never satisfied and always need more.
Two things:
- Do we know if fuels the urge to get real children? Or do we just assume that through repetition like the myth of “gateway drugs”?
- Since no child was involved and harmed in the making of these images… On what grounds could it be forbidden to generate them?
Alternative perspective is to think that does watching normal porn make heterosexual men more likely to rape women? If not then why would it be different in this case?
The vast majority of pedophiles never offend. Most people in jail for child abuse are just plain old rapists with no special interest towards minors, they’re just an easy target. Pedophilia just describes what they’re attracted to. It’s not a synonym to child rapist. It usually needs to coinside with psychopathy to create the monster that most people think about when hearing that word.
That’s a bit of a difference in comparison.
A better comparison would be “does watching common heterosexual porn make common heterosexual men more interested in performing common heterosexual sexual acts?” or "does viewing pornography long term satiate a mans sex drive?” or “does consumption of nonconsensual pornography correlate to an increase in nonconsensual sex acts?”Comparing “viewing child sexual content might lead it engaging in sexual acts with children” to “viewing sexual activity with women might lead to rape” is disingenuous and apples to oranges.
https://wchh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/tre.791
a review of 19 studies published between 2013 and 2018 found an association between online porn use and earlier sexual debut, engaging with occasional and/or multiple partners, emulating risky sexual behaviours, assimilating distorted gender roles, dysfunctional body perception, aggression, anxiety, depression, and compulsive porn use.24 Another study has shown that compulsive use of sexually explicit internet material by adolescent boys is more likely in those with lower self-esteem, depressive feeling and excessive sexual interest.1
some porn use in adult men may have a positive impact by increasing libido and desire for a real-life partner, relieving sexual boredom, and improving sexual satisfaction by providing inspiration for real sex.7
As for child porn, it’s not a given that there’s no relationship between consumption and abusing children. There are studies that indicate both outcomes, and are made much more complicated by one of both activities being extremely illegal and socially stigmatized making accurate tracking difficult.
It’s difficult to justify the notion that “most pedophiles never offend” when it can be difficult to identify both pedophiles and abuse.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21088873/ for example. It looks at people arrested for possession of child pornography. Within six years, 6% were charged with a child contact crime. Likewise, you can find research with a differing conclusion
Point being, you can’t just hand wave the potential for a link away on the grounds that porn doesn’t cause rape amongst typical heterosexual men. There’s too many factors making the statistics difficult to gather.
I would love to see research data pointing either way re #1, although it would be incredibly difficult to do so ethically, verging on impossible. For #2, people have extracted originals or near-originals of inputs to the algorithms. AI generated stuff - plagiarism machine generated stuff, runs the risk of effectively revictimizing people who were already abused to get said inputs.
It’s an ugly situation all around, and unfortunately I don’t know that much can be done about it beyond not demonizing people who have such drives, who have not offended, so that seeking therapy for the condition doesn’t screw them over. Ensuring that people are damned if they do and damned if they don’t seems to pretty reliably produce worse outcomes.
The generated stuff is as illegal as the real stuff. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
The headline/title needs to be extended to include the rest of the sentence
“and then sent them to a minor”
Yes, this sicko needs to be punished. Any attempt to make him the victim of " the big bad government" is manipulative at best.
Edit: made the quote bigger for better visibility.
That’s a very important distinction. While the first part is, to put it lightly, bad, I don’t really care what people do on their own. Getting real people involved, and minor at that? Big no-no.
All LLM headlines are like this to fuel the ongoing hysteria about the tech. It’s really annoying.
Sure is. I report the ones I come across as clickbait or missleading title, explaining the parts left out…such as this one where those 7 words change the story completely.
Whoever made that headline should feel ashamed for victimizing a grommer.
I’d be torn on the idea of AI generating CP, if it were only that. On one hand if it helps them calm the urges while no one is getting hurt, all the better. But on the other hand it might cause them not to seek help, but problem is already stigmatized severely enough that they are most likely not seeking help anyway.
But sending that stuff to a minor. Big problem.
Cartoon CSAM is illegal in the United States. Pretty sure the judges will throw his images under the same ruling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon
It won’t. They’ll get them for the actual crime not the thought crime that’s been nerfed to oblivion.
Based on the blacklists that one has to fire up before browsing just about any large anime/erotica site, I am guessing that these “laws” are not enforced, because they are flimsy laws to begin with. Reading the stipulations for what constitutes a crime is just a hotbed for getting an entire case tossed out of court. I doubt any prosecutors would lean hard on possession of art unless it was being used in another crime.
Bad title.
They caught him not simply for creating pics, but also for trading such pics etc.
You can get away with a lot of heinous crimes by simply not telling people and sharing the results.
You consider it a heinous crime to draw a picture and keep it to yourself?
Read the article. He was arrested for sending the pictures to at least one minor.
Re-read RickyRigatoni’s comment.
Creating the pics is a crime by itself. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon
That’s sickening to know there are bastards out there who will get away with it since they are only creating it.
I’m not sure. Let us assume that you generate it on your own PC at home (not using a public service) and don’t brag about it and never give it to anybody - what harm is done?
Society is not ok with the idea of someone cranking to CSAM, then just walking around town. It gives people wolf-in-sheep-clothing vibes.
So the notion of there being “ok” CSAM-style ai content is a non starter for a huge fraction of people because it still suggests appeasing a predator.
I’m definitely one of those people that simply can’t accept any version of it.
Even if the AI didn’t train itself on actual CSAM that is something that feels inherently wrong. Your mind is not right to think that’s acceptable IMO.
Laws shouldn’t be about feelings though and we shouldn’t prosecute people for victimless thought crimes. How often did you think something violent when someone really pissed you off? Should you have been persecuted for that thought too?
This goes away further than a thought
Who are the victims of someone generating such images privately then? It’s on the same level as all the various fan fiction shit that was created manually over all the past decades.
And do we apply this to other depictions of criminalized things too? Would we ban the depiction of violence & sexual violence on TV, in books, and in video games too?
It’s worth mentioning that in this instance the guy did send porn to a minor. This isn’t exactly a cut and dry, “guy used stable diffusion wrong” case. He was distributing it and grooming a kid.
The major concern to me, is that there isn’t really any guidance from the FBI on what you can and can’t do, which may lead to some big issues.
For example, websites like novelai make a business out of providing pornographic, anime-style image generation. The models they use deliberately tuned to provide abstract, “artistic” styles, but they can generate semi realistic images.
Now, let’s say a criminal group uses novelai to produce CSAM of real people via the inpainting tools. Let’s say the FBI cast a wide net and begins surveillance of novelai’s userbase.
Is every person who goes on there and types, “Loli” or “Anya from spy x family, realistic, NSFW” (that’s an underaged character) going to get a letter in the mail from the FBI? I feel like it’s within the realm of possibility. What about “teen girls gone wild, NSFW?” Or “young man, no facial body hair, naked, NSFW?”
This is NOT a good scenario, imo. The systems used to produce harmful images being the same systems used to produce benign or borderline images. It’s a dangerous mix, and throws the whole enterprise into question.
The major concern to me, is that there isn’t really any guidance from the FBI on what you can and can’t do, which may lead to some big issues.
https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2024/PSA240329 https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child-pornography
They’ve actually issued warnings and guidance, and the law itself is pretty concise regarding what’s allowed.
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where-
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
© such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
…
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
If you’re going to be doing grey area things you should do more than the five minutes of searching I did to find those honestly.
It was basically born out of a supreme Court case in the early 2000s regarding an earlier version of the law that went much further and banned anything that “appeared to be” or “was presented as” sexual content involving minors, regardless of context, and could have plausibly been used against young looking adult models, artistically significant paintings, or things like Romeo and Juliet, which are neither explicit nor vulgar but could be presented as involving child sexual activity. (Juliet’s 14 and it’s clearly labeled as a love story).
After the relevant provisions were struck down, a new law was passed that factored in the justices rationale and commentary about what would be acceptable and gave us our current system of “it has to have some redeeming value, or not involve actual children and plausibly not look like it involves actual children”.The major concern to me, is that there isn’t really any guidance from the FBI on what you can and can’t do, which may lead to some big issues.
The Protect Act of 2003 means that any artistic depiction of CSAM is illegal. The guidance is pretty clear, FBI is gonna raid your house…eventually. We still haven’t properly funded the anti-CSAM departments.
Is every person who goes on there and types, “Loli” or “Anya from spy x family, realistic, NSFW” (that’s an underaged character) going to get a letter in the mail from the FBI?
I’ll throw that baby out with the bathwater to be honest.
Simulated crimes aren’t crimes. Would you arrest every couple that finds health ways to simulate rape fetishes? Would you arrest every person who watches Fast and The Furious or The Godfather?
If no one is being hurt, if no real CSAM is being fed into the model, if no pornographic images are being sent to minors, it shouldn’t be a crime. Just because it makes you uncomfortable, don’t make it immoral.
Or, ya know, everyone who ever wanted to decapitate those stupid fucking Skyrim children. Crime requires damaged parties, and with this (idealized case, not the specific one in the article) there is none.
Those were demon children from hell (with like 2 exceptions maybe). It was a crime by Bethesda to make them invulnerable / protected by default.
Simulated crimes aren’t crimes.
If they were, any one who’s played games is fucked. I’m confident everyone who has played went on a total ramapage murdering the townfolk, pillaging their houses and blowing everything up…in Minecraft.
They would though. We know they would because conservatives already did the whole laws about how you can have sex in private thing.
Simulated crimes aren’t crimes.
Artistic CSAM is definitely a crime in the United States. PROTECT act of 2003.
People have only gotten in trouble for that when they’re already in trouble for real CSAM. I’m not terrible interested in sticking up for actual CSAM scum.
No it’s immoral because they are sexual gratifying themselves to pictures that look like children. Sexually desiring children or wanting to see them abused is immoral, full stop.
If no real child is involved in any way, who is hurt?
For now, if you read the article, it states that he shared the pictures to form like minded groups where they got emboldened and could support each other and legitimize/normalize their perverted thoughts. How about no thanks.
wrong comment chain. people weren’t talking about the criminal shithead the article is about but about the scenario of someone using (not csam trained) models to create questionable content (thus it is implied that there would be no victim). we all know that there are bad actors out there, just like there are rapists and murderers. still we dont condemn true crime lovers or rape fetishists until they commit a crime. we could do the same with pedos but somehow we believe hating them into the shadows will stop them somehow from doing criminal stuff?
And I’m using the article as an example of that it doesn’t just stop at “victimless” images, because they are not fucking normal people. They are mentally sick, they are sexually turned on by the abuse of a minor, not by the minor but by abusing the minor, sexually.
In what world would a person like that stop at looking at images, they actively search for victims, create groups where they share and discuss abusing minors.
Yes dude, they are fucking dangerous bro, life is not fair. You wouldn’t say the same shit if some one close to you was a victim.
Maybe you should focus your energy on normalized things that actually effect kids like banning full contact sports that cause CTE.
What do you mean focus your energy, how much energy do you think I spend on discussing perverts? And what should I spend my time discussing contact sports. It’s sound like you are deflecting.
Pedophiles get turned on abusing minors, they are mentally sick. It’s not like its a normal sexual desire, they will never stop at watching “victimless” images. Fuck pedophiles they don’t deserve shit, and hope they eat shit he rest of their lives.
Real children are in training data regardless of if there is csam in the data or not (which there is a high chance there is considering how they get their training data) so real children are involved
I’ve already stated that I do not support using images of real children in the models. Even if the images are safe/legal, it’s a violation of privacy.
Nobody is arguing that it’s moral. That’s not the line for government intervention. If it was then the entire private banking system would be in prison.
deleted by creator
America has some of the most militant anti pedophilic culture in the world but they far and away have the highest rates of child sexual assault.
I think AI is going to revel is how deeply hypocritical Americans are on this issue. You have gigantic institutions like churches committing industrial scale victimization yet you won’t find a 1/10th of the righteous indignation against other organized religions where there is just as much evidence it is happening as you will regarding one person producing images that don’t actually hurt anyone.
It’s pretty clear by how staggering a rate of child abuse that occurs in the states that Americans are just using child victims as weaponized politicalization (it’s next to impossible to convincingly fight off pedo accusations if you’re being mobbed) and aren’t actually interested in fighting pedophilia.
Most states will let grown men marry children as young as 14. There is a special carve out for Christian pedophiles.
Fortunately most instances are in the category of a 17 year old to an 18 year old, and require parental consent and some manner of judicial approval, but the rates of “not that” are still much higher than one would want.
~300k in a 20 year window total, 74% of the older partner being 20 or younger, and 95% of the younger partner being 16 or 17, with only 14% accounting for both partners being under 18.There’s still no reason for it in any case, and I’m glad to live in one of the states that said "nah, never needed .
OMG. Every other post is saying their disgusted about the images part but it’s a grey area, but he’s definitely in trouble for contacting a minor.
Cartoon CSAM is illegal in the United States. AI images of CSAM fall into that category. It was illegal for him to make the images in the first place BEFORE he started sending them to a minor.
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon
Yeah that’s toothless. They decided there is no particular way to age a cartoon, they could be from another planet that simply seem younger but are in actuality older.
It’s bunk, let them draw or generate whatever they want, totally fictional events and people are fair game and quite honestly I’d Rather they stay active doing that then get active actually abusing children.
Outlaw shibari and I guarantee you’d have multiple serial killers btk-ing some unlucky souls.
Exactly. If you can’t name a victim, it shouldn’t be illegal.
The problem with AI CSAM generation is that the AI has to be trained on something first. It has to somehow know what a naked minor looks like. And to do that, well… You need to feed it CSAM.
So is it right to be using images of real children to train these AI? You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks that’s okay.
You make the assumption that the person generating the images also trained the AI model. You also make assumptions about how the AI was trained without knowing anything about the model.
Are there any guarantees that harmful images weren’t used in these AI models? Based on how image generation works now, it’s very likely that harmful images were used to train the data.
And if a person is using a model based on harmful training data, they should be held responsible.
However, the AI owner/trainer has even more responsibility in perpetuating harm to children and should be prosecuted appropriately.
And if a person is using a model based on harmful training data, they should be held responsible.
I will have to disagree with you for several reasons.
- You are still making assumptions about a system you know absolutely nothing about.
- By your logic anything born from something that caused suffering from others (this example is AI trained on CSAM) the users of that product should be held responsible for the crime committed to create that product.
- Does that apply to every product/result created from human suffering or just the things you don’t like?
- Will you apply that logic to the prosperity of Western Nations built on the suffering of indigenous and enslaved people? Should everyone who benefit from western prosperity be held responsible for the crimes committed against those people?
- What about medicine? Two examples are The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the cancer cells of Henrietta Lacks. Medicine benefited greatly from these two examples but crimes were committed against the people involved. Should every patient from a cancer program that benefited from Ms. Lacks’ cancer cells also be subject to pay compensation to her family? The doctors that used her cells without permission didn’t.
- Should we also talk about the advances in medicine found by Nazis who experimented on Jews and others during WW2? We used that data in our manned space program paving the way to all the benefits we get from space technology.
The difference between the things you’re listing and SAM is that those other things have actual utility outside of getting off. Were our phones made with human suffering? Probably but phones have many more uses than making someone cum. Are all those things wrong? Yea, but at least good came out of it outside of just giving people sexual gratification directly from the harm of others.
The topic that you’re choosing to focus on really interesting. what are your values?
LOL, that’s a lot of bullshit misdirection to defend AI child porn. Christ, can there be one social media like platform that just has normal fucking people.
Are there any guarantees that harmful images weren’t used in these AI models?
Lol, highly doubt it. These AI assholes pretend that all the training data randomly fell into the model (off the back of a truck) and that they cannot possibly be held responsible for that or know anything about it because they were too busy innovating.
There’s no guarantee that most regular porn sites don’t contain csam or other exploitative imagery and video (sex trafficking victims). There’s absolutely zero chance that there’s any kind of guarantee.
the AI has to be trained on something first. It has to somehow know what a naked minor looks like. And to do that, well… You need to feed it CSAM.
First of all, not every image of a naked child is CSAM. This is actually been kind of a problem with automated CSAM detection systems triggering false positives on non-sexual images, and getting innocent people into trouble.
But also, AI systems can blend multiple elements together. They don’t need CSAM training material to create CSAM, just the individual elements crafted into a prompt sufficient to create the image while avoiding any safeguards.
You ignored the second part of their post. Even if it didn’t use any csam is it right to use pictures of real children to generate csam? I really don’t think it is.
There are probably safeguards in place to prevent the creation of CSAM, just like there are for other illegal and offensive things, but determined people work around them.
If the images were generated from CSAM, then there’s a victim. If they weren’t, there’s no victim.
The images were created using photos of real children even if said photos weren’t CSAM (which can’t be guaranteed they weren’t). So the victims were are the children used to generate CSAM
Let’s do a thought experiment, and I’d look to to tell me at what point a victim was introduced:
- I legally acquire pictures of a child, fully clothed and everything
- I draw a picture based on those legal pictures, but the subject is nude or doing sexually explicit things
- I keep the picture for my own personal use and don’t distribute it
Or with AI:
- I legally acquire pictures of children, fully clothed and everything
- I legally acquire pictures of nude adults, some doing sexually explicit things
- I train an AI on a mix of 1&2
- I generate images of nude children, some of them doing sexually explicit things
- I keep the pictures for my own personal use and don’t distribute any of them
- I distribute my model, using the right to distribute from the legal acquisition of those images
At what point did my actions victimize someone?
If I distributed those images and those images resemble a real person, then that real person is potentially a victim.
I will say someone who does this creepy and I don’t want them anywhere near children (especially mine, and yes, I have kids), but I don’t think it should be illegal, provided the source material is legal. But as soon as I distribute it, there absolutely could be a victim. Being creepy shouldn’t be a crime.
I think it should be illegal to make porn of a person without their permission regardless of if it was shared or not. Imagine the person it is based off of finds out someone is doing that. That causes mental strain on the person. Just like how revenge porn doesn’t actively harm a person but causes mental strafe (both the initial upload and continued use of it). For scenario 1 it would be at step 2 when the porn is made of the person. For scenario 2 it would be a mix between step 3 and 4.
I hate the no victim argument.
Why? Can you elaborate?
It has to somehow know what a naked minor looks like.
Not necessarily
You need to feed it CSAM
You don’t. You just need lists of other things, properly tagged. If you feed an AI a bunch of clothed adults and a bunch of naked adults, it will, in theory, “understand” the difference between being clothed and naked and create any of its clothed adults, naked.
With that initial set above, you feed it a bunch of clothed children. When you ask for a naked child, it will either produce a child head with naked adult body, or a “weird” naked child. It “understands” that adult and child are different things, that clothed and naked are different things, and tries to infer what “naked child” looks like from what it “knows”.
So is it right to be using images of real children to train these AI?
This is the real question and one I don’t know the answer to, because it will boil down to consent to being part of a training model, whether your own as an adult, or a child’s parent, much like how it works for stock photos and videos.
“I consent to having my likeness used for AI training models, except for any use that involves NSFW content” - Fair enough. Good luck enforcing that.
My main issue with generation is the ability of making it close enough to reality. Even with the more realistic art stuff, some outright referenced or even traced CSAM. The other issue is the lack of easy differentiation between reality and fiction, and it muddies the water. “I swear officer, I thought it was AI” would become the new “I swear officer, she said she was 18”.
That is not an end user issue, that’s a dev issue. Can’t train on scam if it isn’t available and as such is tacit admission of actual possession.
Would Lisa Simpson be 8 years old, or 43 because the Simpsons started in 1989?
Big brain PDF tells the judge it is okay because the person in the picture is now an adult.
That’s the issue though. As far as I know it hasn’t been tested in court and it’s quite possible the law is useless and has no teeth.
With AI porn you can point to real victims whose unconsented pictures were used to train the models, and say that’s abuse. But when it’s just a drawing, who is the victim? Is it just a thought crime? Can we prosecute those?
I thought cartoons/illustrations of that nature were only illegal in the UK (Coroners and Justices Act 2008) and Switzerland. TIL about the PROTECT Act.
The thing about the PROTECT Act is that it relies on the Miller test, which has obvious holes, and is like depends on who is reviewing it and stuff. I have heard even the UK law has holes which can be exploited.
Several countries prohibit any fictional depictions of child porn, whether drawn, written or otherwise. Wikipedia has an interesting list on that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography
I wonder if there is significant migration happening into those countries where csam os legal.
Most people instead have a trip to a place where underage sex workers are common, one can just have an external hard drive and/or a USB stick for that material which they hide. "An"caps are actively trying to form their own countries, partly to legalize “recordings of crimes” as they like to call them, if not outright to legalize child rape and child sex trafficking.
Unlikely. Tourism, on the other hand…
deleted by creator
Yikes at the responses ITT. This shit should definitely be illegal, and the people that want it probably want to abuse real children too. All of you parsing arguments to make goddamn representations of sexual child abuse legal should take a long hard look in the mirror and consider whether or not you yourself need therapy.
Sure, and then some judge starts making subjective decisions on drawn/painted art that didn’t hurt anyone and suddenly people are getting hurt.
The justice system is supposed to protect society, not hurt people you don’t like.
While I do think realistic stuff should be illegal, no question, with the loli/shota/whatever, you’re just opening a can of worms that could be applied to other things too, and some already did.
Regulators used the very same “normalizing certain sexual acts” to try and censor more extreme form of porn and/or the sexual acts themselves, and partly succeeded in the UK. Sure, scat is gross, many like that exactly due to that. One could even talk about the health risks too. Same with fisting, which is too extreme for many, supposed to be extremely painful because many people’s only exposure to it was from Requiem for a Dream, and has some associated health risks. However, a lot of it is some misrepresentation of the truth, with scat isn’t that big of a health risk if you have a good immune system (rest can be mitigated with precautions and moderation), and fisting isn’t inherently painful (source: me).
And the same is true about loli/shota. The terms aren’t just applied to actual underage characters, but for the “short adults” common within the VTubing scene, many of which are also shorter in real life (obligatory “of course not all”). Some of those other characters are also adults, that have exaggerated, almost child-like physique. Most of it however is still just some depiction of children, and otherwise I can understand why some wants to abstain from even the “adult loli/shota” stuff. I remember when pubic hair removal was becoming mainstream, and many, like radical feminists, feared it would normalize pedophilia, I even got called a pedo by a pubic hair connoisseur for not really liking it. I also don’t really want to talk over victims of CSA, many of who want it banned, many of who want it legal.
As for normalizing: The greatest normalization is done by pedos getting into the fandom to recruit others, and entertain the idea of a lower age of consent. For a long time, we threw out these motherfuckers from our community. But then 4chan happened, and suddenly these very same people just started screaming “it’s just an edgy joke bro”, so at one point people trying to keep these creeps out of the anime community in general became villainified, and with gamergate and the culture wars hitting the scene, “gatekeeping the normies” became the priority, so these sick fucks became a feature, which created in the anime community
- a nazi/pedo/weird gatekeeping free space,
- and a space that doesn’t moralize about loli/shota.
I had a lot of connections to victims of CSA, most of them were teens, none were groomed by loli/shota (everyone’s mileage will vary on it, likely different in the age of the internet), but by either some non-pornographic work featuring a teen girl and an older man (usually in historic setting), or just by the perpetrator likening a 25+yo guy (often they lied they were way younger) going out with a 14 yo girl to her parents age gap (I’m in Hungary, where that’s technically legal🤮). Usually a simple “that big age gap isn’t okay in your age” talk did wonders, unless the only way for the girl to eat that day was to go out with that guy.
These cases are interesting tests of our first amendment rights. “Real” CP requires abuse of a minor, and I think we can all agree that it should be illegal. But it gets pretty messy when we are talking about depictions of abuse.
Currently, we do not outlaw written depictions nor drawings of child sexual abuse. In my opinion, we do not ban these things partly because they are obvious fictions. But also I think we recognize that we should not be in the business of criminalizing expression, regardless of how disgusting it is. I can imagine instances where these fictional depictions could be used in a way that is criminal, such as using them to blackmail someone. In the absence of any harm, it is difficult to justify criminalizing fictional depictions of child abuse.
So how are AI-generated depictions different? First, they are not obvious fictions. Is this enough to cross the line into criminal behavior? I think reasonable minds could disagree. Second, is there harm from these depictions? If the AI models were trained on abusive content, then yes there is harm directly tied to the generation of these images. But what if the training data did not include any abusive content, and these images really are purely depictions of imagination? Then the discussion of harms becomes pretty vague and indirect. Will these images embolden child abusers or increase demand for “real” images of abuse. Is that enough to criminalize them, or should they be treated like other fictional depictions?
We will have some very interesting case law around AI generated content and the limits of free speech. One could argue that the AI is not a person and has no right of free speech, so any content generated by AI could be regulated in any manner. But this argument fails to acknowledge that AI is a tool for expression, similar to pen and paper.
A big problem with AI content is that we have become accustomed to viewing photos and videos as trusted forms of truth. As we re-learn what forms of media can be trusted as “real,” we will likely change our opinions about fringe forms of AI-generated content and where it is appropriate to regulate them.
It comes back to distribution for me. If they are generating the stuff for themselves, gross, but I don’t see how it can really be illegal. But if your distributing them, how do we know their not real? The amount of investigative resources that would need to be dumped into that, and the impact on those investigators mental health, I don’t know. I really don’t have an answer, I don’t know how they make it illegal, but it really feels like distribution should be.
partly because they are obvious fictions
That’s it actually, all sites that allow it like danbooru, gelbooru, pixiv, etc. Have a clause against photo realistic content and they will remove it.
It feels incredibly gross to just say “generated CSAM is a-ok, grab your hog and go nuts”, but I can’t really say that it should be illegal if no child was harmed in the training of the model. The idea that it could be a gateway to real abuse comes to mind, but that’s a slippery slope that leads to “video games cause school shootings” type of logic.
I don’t know, it’s a very tough thing to untangle. I guess I’d just want to know if someone was doing that so I could stay far, far away from them.
Well thought-out and articulated opinion, thanks for sharing.
If even the most skilled hyper-realistic painters were out there painting depictions of CSAM, we’d probably still label it as free speech because we “know” it to be fiction.
When a computer rolls the dice against a model and imagines a novel composition of children’s images combined with what it knows about adult material, it does seem more difficult to label it as entirely fictional. That may be partly because the source material may have actually been real, even if the final composition is imagined. I don’t intend to suggest models trained on CSAM either, I’m thinking of models trained to know what both mature and immature body shapes look like, as well as adult content, and letting the algorithm figure out the rest.
Nevertheless, as you brought up, nobody is harmed in this scenario, even though many people in our culture and society find this behavior and content to be repulsive.
To a high degree, I think we can still label an individual who consumes this type of AI content to be a pedophile, and although being a pedophile is not in and of itself an illegal adjective to posses, it comes with societal consequences. Additionally, pedophilia is a DSM-5 psychiatric disorder, which could be a pathway to some sort of consequences for those who partake.
Currently, we do not outlaw written depictions nor drawings of child sexual abuse
Cartoon CSAM is illegal in the United States
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon
for some reason the US seems to hold a weird position on this one. I don’t really understand it.
It’s written to be illegal, but if you look at prosecution cases, i think there have been only a handful of charged cases. The prominent ones which also include relevant previous offenses, or worse.
It’s also interesting when you consider that there are almost definitely large image boards hosted in the US that host what could be constituted as “cartoon CSAM” notably e621, i’d have to verify their hosting location, but i believe they’re in the US. And so far i don’t believe they’ve ever had any issues with it. And i’m sure there are other good examples as well.
I suppose you could argue they’re exempt on the publisher rules. But these sites don’t moderate against these images, generally. And i feel like this would be the rare exception where it wouldnt be applicable.
The law is fucking weird dude. There is a massive disconnect between what we should be seeing, and what we are seeing. I assume because the authorities who moderate this shit almost exclusively go after real CSAM, on account of it actually being a literal offense, as opposed to drawn CSAM, being a proxy offense.
It seems to me to be a lesser charge. A net that catches a larger population and they can then go fishing for bigger fish to make the prosecutor look good. Or as I’ve heard from others, it is used to simplify prosecution. PedoAnon can’t argue “it’s a deepfake, not a real kid” to the SWAT team.
There is a massive disconnect between what we should be seeing, and what we are seeing. I assume because the authorities who moderate this shit almost exclusively go after real CSAM, on account of it actually being a literal offense, as opposed to drawn CSAM, being a proxy offense. This can be attributed to no proper funding of CSAM enforcement. Pedos get picked up if they become an active embarrassment like the article dude. Otherwise all the money is just spent on the database getting bigger and keeping the lights on. Which works for congress. A public pedo gets nailed to the wall because of the database, the spooky spectre of the pedo out for your kids remains, vote for me please…
It seems to me to be a lesser charge. A net that catches a larger population and they can then go fishing for bigger fish to make the prosecutor look good. Or as I’ve heard from others, it is used to simplify prosecution. PedoAnon can’t argue “it’s a deepfake, not a real kid” to the SWAT team.
ah that could be a possibility as well. Just ensuring reasonable flexibility in prosecution so you can be sure of what you get.
Article title is a bit misleading. Just glancing through I see he texted at least one minor in regards to this and distributed those generated pics in a few places. Putting it all together, yeah, arrest is kind of a no-brainer. Ethics of generating csam is the same as drawing it pretty much. Not much we can do about it aside from education.
Legally, a sufficiently detailed image depicting csam is csam, regardless of how it was produced. Sharing it is why he got caught, inevitably, but it’s still illegal even if he never brought a minor into it.
Making the CSAM is illegal by itself https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon
Title is pretty accurate.
Lemmy really needs to stop justifying CP. We can absolutely do more than “eDuCaTiOn”. AI is created by humans, the training data is gathered by humans, it needs regulation like any other industry.
It’s absolutely insane to me how laissez-fair some people are about AI, it’s like a cult.
While I agree with your attitude, the whole ‘laissez-fair’ thing is probably a misunderstanding:
There is nothing we can do to stop the AI.
Nothing.
The genie is out of the bottle, the Pandora’s box has been opened, everything is out and it won’t ever return. The world will never be the same, and it’s irrelevant what people think.
That’s why we need to better understand the post-AI world we created, and figure out what do to now.
Also, to hell with CP. (feels weird to use the word ‘fuck’ here)
Thats not the question, the question is not “can we stop AI entirely” it’s about regulating its development and yes, we can make efforts to do that.
This attitude of “it’s inevitable, can’t do anything about it” is eerily similar logic to what is used in climate denial and other right-wing efforts. It’s a really poor attitude to have, especially about something as consequential as AI.
We have the best opportunity right now to create rules about its uses and development. The answer is not “do nothing” as if it’s some force of nature, as opposed toa tool created by humans.
I hear you, and I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I just know that’s not how anything works.
Regulations work for big companies, but there isn’t a big company behind this specific case. And those small-time users have run away and you can’t stop them.
It’s like trying to regulate cameras to not store specific images. Like, I get the sentiment, but sorry, no. It’s not that I would not like that, it’s just not possible.
This argument could be applied to anything though. A lot of people get away with myrder, we should still try and do what we can to stop it from happening.
You can’t sit in every car and force people to wear a seatbelt, we still have seatbelt laws and regulations for manufacturers.
Physical things are much easier to regulate than software, much less serverless.
We already regulate certain images, and it matters very little.
The bigger payoff will be from educating the public and accepting that we can’t win every war.
So accept defeat from the start, that’s really just a non-starter. AI models run on hardware, they are developed by specific people, their contents are distributed by specific individuals, code bases are hosted on hardware and on specific outlets.
It really does sound like you’re just trying to make excuses to avoid regulation, not that you genuinely have a good reason to think it’s not possible to try.
Dude the amount of open source, untrackable, distributed ai models is off the charts. This isn’t just about the models offered by subscription from the big players.
This is still one of the weaker arguments. There is a lot of malware out there too, people are still prosecuted when they’re caught developing and distributing it, we don’t just throw up our hands and pretend there’s nothing that can be done.
Like, yeah, some pedophile who also happens to be tech saavy might build his own AI model to make CP, that’s not some self-evident argument against attempting to stop them.
No, like, the tools to do these things are common and readily available. It’s not malware, it’s generalized ai tools, completely embroiled with non image ai work.
Pandora’s box is wide open. All of this work can be done trivially, completely offline with a basic PC. Anyone motivated can be offline and up and running in a weekend
You’re asking to outlaw something like a spreadsheet.
You download a general purpose image ai model, then train and prompt it completely offline
The models used are not trained on CP. The models weight are distributed freely and anybody can train a LORA on his computer. Its already too late to ban open weight models.
You don’t need CSAM training data to create CSAM images. If your model knows how children looks like, how naked human bodies look like, then it can create naked children. That’s simply how generative models like this work and has absolutely nothing to do with specifically trained models for CSAM using actual CSAM material.
So while I disagree with him, in that lack of education is the cause of CSAM or pedophilia… I’d say it could help with the general hysteria about LLMs, like the one’s coming from you, who just let their emotions run wild when those topics arise. You people need to understand that the goal should be the protection of potential victims, not the punishment of victimless thought crimes.
One of two classic excuses, virtue signalling to hijack control of our devices, our computing, an attack on libre software (they don’t care about CP). Next, they’ll be banning more math, encryption, again.
It says gullible at the start of this page, scroll up and see.
deleted by creator
The fuck are you talking about? No one’s “enslaving” you because they’re trying to stop you from generating child porn.
Fucking libertarians dude.
deleted by creator
Ah yes, we need child porn because it’s a slippery slope.
Ah yes, more bait articles rising to the top of Lemmy. The guy was arrested for grooming, he was sending these images to a minor. Outside of Digg, anyone have any suggestions for an alternative to Lemmy and Reddit? Lemmy’s moderation quality is shit, I think I’m starting to figure out where I lean on the success of my experimental stay with Lemmy
Edit: Oh god, I actually checked digg out after posting this and the site design makes it look like you’re actually scrolling through all of the ads at the bottom of a bulshit clickbait article
you are too optimistic about the internet
I fail to see what part of my comment is optimistic? xD
That anywhere else is better.
You can go to an instance that follows your views closer and start blocking instances that post low quality content to you. Lemmy is a protocol, it’s not a single community. So the moderation and post quality is going to be determined by the instance you’re on and the community you’re with.
This is throwing a blanket over the problem. When the mods of a news community allow bait articles to stay up because they (presumably) further their views, it should be called out as a problem.
Lemmy as a whole does not have moderation. Moderators on Lemmy.today cannot moderate Lemmy.world or Lemmy ml, they can only remove problematic posts as they come and as they see fit or block entire instances which is rare.
If you want stricter content rules than any of the available federated instances then you’ll have to either:
-
Use a centralized platform like Reddit but they’re going to sell you out for data profits and you’ll still have to occasionally deal with shit like “The Donald.”
-
Start your own instance with a self hosted server and create your own code of conduct and hire moderators to enforce it.
Yeah, I know, thats why I’m finding lemmy not for me. This new rage bait every week is tiring and not adding anything to my life except stress, and once I started looking at who the moderaters were when Lemmy’d find a new thing to rave about, I found that often there was 1-3 actual moderators, which, fuck that. With reddit, the shit subs were the exception, here it feels like they ALL (FEEL being a key word here) have a tendency to dive face first into rage bait
Edit: Most of the reddit migration happened because Reddit fucked over their moderators, a lot of us were happy with well moderated discussions, and if we didnt care to have moderators, we could have just stayed with reddit after the moderators were pushed away
-
Go to instance that moderate like you like it.
This is tough, the goal should be to reduce child abuse. It’s unknown if AI generated CP will increase or reduce child abuse. It will likely encourage some individuals to abuse actual children while for others it may satisfy their urges so they don’t abuse children. Like everything else AI, we won’t know the real impact for many years.
How do you think they train models to generate CSAM?
Some of yall need to lookup what an LoRA is
Lol you don’t need to train it ON CSAM to generate CSAM. Get a clue.
https://purl.stanford.edu/kh752sm9123
I don’t know if we can say for certain it needs to be in the dataset, but I do wonder how many of the other models used to create CSAM are also trained on CSAM.
It should be illegal either way, to be clear. But you think theyre not training models on CSAM? Youre trusting in the morality/ethics of people creating AI generated child pornography?
The use of CSAM in training generative AI models is an issue no matter how these models are being used.
The training doesn’t use csam, 0% chance big tech would use that in their dataset. The models are somewhat able to link concept like red and car, even if it had never seen a red car before.
Well, with models like SD at least, the datasets are large enough and the employees are few enough that it is impossible to have a human filter every image. They scrape them from the web and try to filter with AI, but there is still a chance of bad images getting through. This is why most companies install filters after the model as well as in the training process.
You make it sound like it is so easy to even find such content on the www. The point is, they do not need to be trained on such material. They are trained on regular kids, so they know their sizes, faces, etc. They’re trained on nude bodies, so they also know how hairless genitals or flat chests look like. You don’t need to specifically train a model on nude children to generate nude children.
I suggest you actually download stable diffusion and try for yourself because it’s clear that you don’t have any clue what you’re talking about. You can already make tiny people, shaved, genitals, flat chests, child like faces, etc. etc. It’s all already there. Literally no need for any LoRAs or very specifically trained models.
He then allegedly communicated with a 15-year-old boy, describing his process for creating the images, and sent him several of the AI generated images of minors through Instagram direct messages. In some of the messages, Anderegg told Instagram users that he uses Telegram to distribute AI-generated CSAM. “He actively cultivated an online community of like-minded offenders—through Instagram and Telegram—in which he could show off his obscene depictions of minors and discuss with these other offenders their shared sexual interest in children,” the court records allege. “Put differently, he used these GenAI images to attract other offenders who could normalize and validate his sexual interest in children while simultaneously fueling these offenders’ interest—and his own—in seeing minors being sexually abused.”
I think the fact that he was promoting child sexual abuse and was communicating with children and creating communities with them to distribute the content is the most damning thing, regardless of people’s take on the matter.
Umm … That AI generated hentai on the page of the same article, though … Do the editors have any self-awareness? Reminds me of the time an admin decided the best course of action to call out CSAM was to directly link to the source.
Wait do you think all Hentai is CSAM?
And sending the images to a 15 year old crosses the line no matter how he got the images.
Hentai is obviously not CSAM. But having a hentai image on an article about CSAM and child grooming is pretty poorly thought out
You know, looking at it again, I think it’s an ad.
It’s an ad for another article on that site.
Umm … That AI generated hentai on the page of the same article, though … Do the editors have any self-awareness? Reminds me of the time an admin decided the best course of action to call out CSAM was to directly link to the source.
The image depicts mature women, not children.
Correct. And OP’s not saying it is.
But to place that sort of image on an article about CSAM is very poorly thought out
Breaking news: Paint made illegal, cause some moron painted something stupid.
I’d usually agree with you, but it seems he sent them to an actual minor for “reasons”.
Asked whether more funding will be provided for the anti-paint enforcement divisions: it’s such a big backlog, we’ll rather just wait for somebody to piss of a politician to focus our resources.
Some places do lock up spray paint due to its use in graffiti, so that’s not without precedent.
They lock it up because it’s frequently stolen. (Because of its use in graffiti, but still.)
Does this mean the AI was trained on CP material? How else would it know how to do this?
It would not need to be trained on CP. It would just need to know what human bodies can look like and what sex is.
AIs usually try not to allow certain content to be produced, but it seems people are always finding ways to work around those safeguards.
AIs usually try not to allow certain content to be produced, but it seems people are always finding ways to work around those safeguards.
Local model go brrrrrr
Training is how it knows it…
You can ask it to make an image of a man made of pizza. That doesn’t mean it was trained on images of that.
But it means that it was trained on people and on pizza. If it can produce CSAM, it means it had access to pictures of naked minors. Even if it wasn’t in a sexual context.
Minors are people. It knows what clothed people of all ages look like. It also knows what naked adults look like. The whole point of AI is that it can fill in the gaps and create something it wasn’t trained on. Naked + child is just a simple equation for it to solve
You can always tell when someone has no clue about AI but has read online about it.
The whole point of those generative models that they are very good at blending different styles and concepts together to create coherent images. They’re also really good at editing images to add or remove entire objects.
I think @deathbird@mander.xyz meant was the AI could be trained on what sex is and what children are at different points. Then a user request could put those two concepts together.
But as the replies I got show, there were multiple ways this could have got accomplished. All I know is AI needs to go to jail.
Well some llm have been caught wirh cp in their training data
Likely yes, and even commercial models have an issue with CSAM leaking into their datasets. The scummiest of all of them likelyget one offline model, then add their collection of CSAM to it.
Isn’t there evidence that as artificial CSAM is made more available, the actual amount of abuse is reduced? I would research this but I’m at work.
I wonder if cartoonized animals in CSAM theme is also illegal… guess I can contact my local FBI office and provide them the web addresses of such content. Let them decide what is best.
