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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And use of the model drives demand for it, just like purchasing real CSAM. Even if the subject is now 50 years old, it incentivizes abusers to make new material from people that are currently underage.
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.
There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that viewing any kind of porn leads to any behavior other than possibly viewing more porn. People who view furry porn don’t suddenly decide they want to fuck animals, people who view rape fantasy material don’t magically become enthusiastic rapists. People who want to molest children don’t want it because they saw porn about it, they create CSAM as a result of their pre-existing pedophilic urges. Horse, then cart.
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.
I said risk, not that it definitely would happen. Caution, do you know about that? Or reading comprehension.
It’s the same as when a chemical isn’t proven safe and businesses are not allowed to add it to your food. It may be completely safe, but just in case.
If the benefit of using something outweighs the risk it would be reasonable to allow it, but we are talking about something with no proven benefit other than letting pedos enjoy themselves.
Not to talk about the re-victimization of CSAM survivors because there are cases of victims appearing in AI generated material because of the training using the original rape media. But I guess you don’t care and would say they just look alike or some excuse.
Driving drunk is known to be dangerous. People who indulge in that behavior eventually hurt others. We don’t wait for a drunk driver to crash into someone before we arrest them. We arrest them the minute they turn on their car while drunk.
Someone who indulges in sexualizing children will eventually hurt a child and we should not need to wait for it to happen before we arrest them.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up. You don’t have research to support the claim that viewing any sort of pornographic material leads to behaviors depicted in that material, personal stories and confessions are not even close to the same thing as research and the fact that you bothered listing them together tells me that you’re a fucking moron
My dude anything is possible when you gatekeep information. You’re defending making child sexual abuse material (SCAM).
This is what the entire case was sort of about, and also explicitly not about. Does it harm children and the answer was the first amendment. That’s not really an answer. Honestly this isn’t a problem for the courts to figure out it’s a legislative problem and good luck with that.
My personal opinion, no one should be able to create any sexualized content of children regardless of whether or not it’s AI generated, authentic CSAM, hand drawn art, or anything else. Children should not be sexualized, I can’t believe this is up for debate.
I’m not defending anything, I’m attacking a baseless claim about pornography making people do things, learn to read dumbass. Your personal opinion is as worthless as the person I was initially responding to.
Oh wow. You seem to be awfully enraged about this. You must have some personal investment in people being allowed to view specific types of “pornographic material”. Well, don’t let something like facts or common sense get in the way of your crusade.
Most reasonable people would get angry about someone lying about shit and then telling them they’re wrong for calling them out and backhandedly accusing them of being pedophiles for disagreeing, and that is exactly what happens every time this topic comes up. I do have a vested interest in keeping the US from setting up a legal justification/precedent/system for incarcerating and killing trans people, of which I am one, and conservatives have been pushing the narrative that trans people are converting/targeting kids specifically for this reason. Any legal framework targeting pedophiles for anything other than actual crimes against children will be hijacked by conservatives and used against me and people I care about for the crime of being queer.
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.
Arguing for the legal production of CSAM is fucked up, even if it’s by an AI.
Also the article specifically states:
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.
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.
And use of the model drives demand for it, just like purchasing real CSAM. Even if the subject is now 50 years old, it incentivizes abusers to make new material from people that are currently underage.
That’s the thing… it was derived from real CP.
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.
You can think whatever you want about what creeps may or may not do hypothetically, until you’ve got actual evidence those thoughts are worthless
So it is worthy to risk children being raped to feed the paraphilia of few people. Okay, but not okay.
There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that viewing any kind of porn leads to any behavior other than possibly viewing more porn. People who view furry porn don’t suddenly decide they want to fuck animals, people who view rape fantasy material don’t magically become enthusiastic rapists. People who want to molest children don’t want it because they saw porn about it, they create CSAM as a result of their pre-existing pedophilic urges. Horse, then cart.
from the article:
I said risk, not that it definitely would happen. Caution, do you know about that? Or reading comprehension.
It’s the same as when a chemical isn’t proven safe and businesses are not allowed to add it to your food. It may be completely safe, but just in case.
If the benefit of using something outweighs the risk it would be reasonable to allow it, but we are talking about something with no proven benefit other than letting pedos enjoy themselves.
Not to talk about the re-victimization of CSAM survivors because there are cases of victims appearing in AI generated material because of the training using the original rape media. But I guess you don’t care and would say they just look alike or some excuse.
There’s no evidence of any risk at all, you are full of shit
Well, since it seems you are a low level troll I’m going to stop feeding you. I’ll go on with my life while you feed on someone else.
Driving drunk is known to be dangerous. People who indulge in that behavior eventually hurt others. We don’t wait for a drunk driver to crash into someone before we arrest them. We arrest them the minute they turn on their car while drunk.
Someone who indulges in sexualizing children will eventually hurt a child and we should not need to wait for it to happen before we arrest them.
Driving drunk is what causes the wreck and the harm directly, viewing pornography has no possible direct result, your comparison is dumb as shit
Evidence? You mean other than the extensive research, clinical tests, personal stories and confessions of offenders?
Anything’s possible when you make shit up. You don’t have research to support the claim that viewing any sort of pornographic material leads to behaviors depicted in that material, personal stories and confessions are not even close to the same thing as research and the fact that you bothered listing them together tells me that you’re a fucking moron
My dude anything is possible when you gatekeep information. You’re defending making child sexual abuse material (SCAM).
This is what the entire case was sort of about, and also explicitly not about. Does it harm children and the answer was the first amendment. That’s not really an answer. Honestly this isn’t a problem for the courts to figure out it’s a legislative problem and good luck with that.
My personal opinion, no one should be able to create any sexualized content of children regardless of whether or not it’s AI generated, authentic CSAM, hand drawn art, or anything else. Children should not be sexualized, I can’t believe this is up for debate.
I’m not defending anything, I’m attacking a baseless claim about pornography making people do things, learn to read dumbass. Your personal opinion is as worthless as the person I was initially responding to.
Oh wow. You seem to be awfully enraged about this. You must have some personal investment in people being allowed to view specific types of “pornographic material”. Well, don’t let something like facts or common sense get in the way of your crusade.
Most reasonable people would get angry about someone lying about shit and then telling them they’re wrong for calling them out and backhandedly accusing them of being pedophiles for disagreeing, and that is exactly what happens every time this topic comes up. I do have a vested interest in keeping the US from setting up a legal justification/precedent/system for incarcerating and killing trans people, of which I am one, and conservatives have been pushing the narrative that trans people are converting/targeting kids specifically for this reason. Any legal framework targeting pedophiles for anything other than actual crimes against children will be hijacked by conservatives and used against me and people I care about for the crime of being queer.
I think I understand why you’re fighting so hard here in the comments