A trial program conducted by Pornhub in collaboration with UK-based child protection organizations aimed to deter users from searching for child abuse material (CSAM) on its website. Whenever CSAM-related terms were searched, a warning message and a chatbot appeared, directing users to support services. The trial reported a significant reduction in CSAM searches and an increase in users seeking help. Despite some limitations in data and complexity, the chatbot showed promise in deterring illegal behavior online. While the trial has ended, the chatbot and warnings remain active on Pornhub’s UK site, with hopes for similar measures across other platforms to create a safer internet environment.

  • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The question is if consuming AI cp is helping to regulate the pedophiles behavior or if it’s enabling a progression of the condition. As far as I know that is an unanswered question.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        For porn in general, yes - I think the data is rather clear. But for cp or related substitute content it’s not that definitive (to my knowledge), be it just for the reason that it’s really difficult to collect data on that sensitive topic.

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Why would it be any different? If it’s about sexual gratification by their chosen media then I’d imagine it wouldn’t matter what the subject was, but obviously it’s always necessary to get actual data to know for sure.

          • Baahb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I think you’re making assumptions that aren’t fair but maybe aren’t obvious either. Honestly I’m only thinking about this because I just watched the contrapoints video on twilight, and so I’ll use her example, though she’s talking about a slightly different topic. Gonna paraphrase like a mofo:

            Weird Power dynamics between partners in a fantasy, like twilight, or say porn since we are being obvious here, is normal because self image often requires women to present one way while hiding their desires for sex. It’s absolution of a sort, and is ostensibly healthy to explore in this way. That said… Some examples such as race play in fantasies may dehumanize the “other” in super not cool ways and reinforce negative racial stereotypes.

            If we take that and extend it to pedophiles, normalization of the thought process leading to that sort of disfunction/disorder seems like a not great thing, but yeah, we’d need to study to learn more and that seems both difficult and likely undesirable for the researchers.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Why would it be any different?

            Because pedophiles display pathological deviation when it comes to sexual attraction.

    • HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Another question is, how will the authorities know the difference? An actual csam-haver can just claim it’s AI

          • cumming_normi@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Because “CSAM” states abuse as the third word in the acronym. Machine learning could (in theory, I lack knowledge on the current implementations) be trained without any children being abused (in any traditional sense anyway) and used to produce the content without any real children being involved (ignoring training data).

            The downvotes likely come from a difference in definition between abuse and CP, images of nonexistent people cannot realistically harm anyone.

            • FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Personally, I don’t think it’s arbitrary. A child in a sexual scenario is a depiction of abuse. Normal, healthy children don’t engage in such behaviors.