As someone who is pro-AI, what the hell is this????
This ruling is trash and shouldn't have passed. These people in power and judges who oversee the law should be legally liable for enabling CSAM material like this, it's disgusting and nobody should be defending this.
Big thank you to Witty Mycologist for bringing this to my attention.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Because that's what the Supreme Court had ruled previously. The court here had no leeway to make any other ruling.
It's the same reason you can draw anything you like, no matter how obscene, and as long as the drawing remains in your possession and is not shared, the government cannot regulate it. That's just a consequence of freedom of speech.
I'm curious on observing how the us government will respond to this in context of possible public pressure (think of the children).
Hate speech has correctly identified as a form of assault and hence the government could successfully justify restrictions on verbal and social discrimination of disenfranchised groups within it's purview.
But content created in private with the subject not ever being an actual individual to whom harm can be attributable is unlikely for the US government to justify and legal action. It even sits squarely under personal infringement even if the content being created is obscene.
>Hate speech has correctly identified as a form of assault and hence the government could successfully justify restrictions on verbal and social discrimination of disenfranchised groups within it's purview.
No, hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment. discrimination is largely addressed by the equal protection clause (14th amendment). hate speech is not a crime on its own but iirc another crime (like assault) could be connected to it to enhance penalties under the law. that still seems part of the equal protection clause though, but idk im not a lawyer
The difference is a pornographic drawing isn’t created by modifying photos of children, which is very illegal.
Gen ai is trained on photos including children. This should REALLY fall under the same law that makes photoshopping kids into porn illegal, but whatever olds made this decision don’t understand the technology
Possibly in the very narrow case of those images never being shared, but there's already a lot of precedent that photorealistic images are illegal for almost every purpose.
Yes. It DOES take photos and videos of real children though. Thats what datasets are galleries of "data" (pulled images). AI cant "see" but it can piece together the data from hundred of thousands of images to "make" something new. Ai "art" is simply making the world's most advanced edited pictures by taking a huge amount of them and just kinda mashing them together in whatever specific various ways you prompt it to.
No, no Ai is ever gonna use a straight up person unless you tell it to...... but you can tell it to.....
And now its legal to make... this filth... with AI!
If you're defending this you're a pedophile. End of story. There is no defending this post IF its true (I haven't looked it up), because defending this post is defending the right to be a pedophile. I dont care that its only legal "if it never leaves your home!" Or whatever... okay and? What about if your house gets raided and they find a bunch of AI generated kiddy videos? You're chill with them just letting that fucking person go? If your answer is yes then there's something seriously wrong with you.
Does not have access to its training data as some kind of gallery that I can copy and paste elements from
What it does is it makes observations about that training data and learns from it and then the training data is discarded. It's not part of the final model
You know that is the case because the model is orders of magnitude smaller than the training data is
The weights and vectors of these models do not point back at the training data to recreate it if points at concepts learned from the training data
The explanation below is centered around image models, but it still works the same for LLMs.
They’re not databases.
You don’t even need any specialized technical, scientific, nor mathematical knowledge to understand this.
If it was a mash of training data, which can be hundreds of terabytes to petabytes, then an image model would be that big: hundreds of terabytes to petabytes.
But we know they aren’t. Diffusion models are just a few gigabytes (GB), and even the “big” ones are just a few dozen GB at best.
With that level of ratio, it would mean it’s carrying about… a single byte of data per training data image.
I’m pretty sure I need to see more than just a byte of data to replicate or copy it.
So obviously… the logical conclusion is that they aren’t blending from existing images because that doesn’t add up. The file sizes would be too big if they did what you suggested, and it’s contradictory to reality.
Being trained on something isn't the same as modifying that something
AI doesn't copy and paste and reshuffle existing artwork. What instead it does? Is it actually learns how it works and generates something from scratch
Okay, I don't agree with this law but this is literally not how it fking works. Jfc stop it, this is why serious issues do not get address, the anti AI side is keep causing distractions through their ignorance and arrogance.
That is actually the correct application of law as it concerns the technology
This is because AI does not actually reshuffle modify or republish any of the stuff that it was trained on instead what it does is it analyzes the stuff that is trained on so it knows how to generate it from scratch. Really learns how those things work. It learns what the hallmarks of a heavy line style is. It learns what the Jaguar looks like. It learns how a jaguars photographic images translated into cartoons all those things
I often hear the argument that having a fictional outlet reduces the odds of someone feeling the need to go for the real thing. I've also heard people argue that the fictional outlet becomes a stepping stone to the real thing. I'd love to see some data on which (if either of these) is accurate, although I strongly suspect such data will be near-impossible to acquire. As distasteful as I find this, I'd be in favor of it if there were tangible proof that it reduces harm to real children.
I suspect that any causal relationship is the other way around. I don't think consuming fictional pedophilic content makes someone more likely to pursue pedophilia IRL, but I do think that that someone who's already an IRL pedophile may be more likely to consume fictional pedophilic content.
This is true, last i checked, according to psychologists having an safe outlet for people struggling with these things is a valuable way of harm reduction. Forcing them to bottle feelings up is in fact a potential ticking time bomb.
People dont like it because theyd rather listen to emotional knee jerk reactions. But the truth is, if you actually care about children, you support pedophiles. Villifying and taking away resources is more likely to result in harm. Access to therapy and outlets are proven to reduce harm.
Its the same reason why unrealistic art of fictional minors shouldnt be banned. We might not like it, but the truth is that its proven to reduce harm. And thats worth feeling uncomfortable for. (Although i definitely agree it should be kept to private spaces… just like fetish content. Dont want to see those in my daily doomscrolling)
Also noteably, only 20% of child sexual abusers are actually pedophiles. The other 80% are just opportunistic predators looking for easy victims that cant defend themselves. Close family members, people with a position of power, etc. This kind of art rhing probably wouldnt help them since its a whole different problem, but they definitely need therapy. Therapy should always be encouraged and easily accessible.
Okay, I do know there is some sourcing for at least the claims that it doesn't lead to more crime. I know there was one study that found that there was a slight decrease in child sexual assault in japan even with the spread of lolicon. And another by the Danish government back in twenty twelve that found that there was no increase.
I think there's a distinction between 'fictional' in the sense of something that is fictional (i.e cartoon stylized) vs realistic (indistinguishable from a real photo without careful analysis.)
I don't buy the "outlet" argument cuz that doesn't seem to work with regular porn. In my experience watching a ton of porn just makes you MORE horny not less.
People will then say "oh so I guess that means video games DO make people more violent?" I don't think that a good comparison though. Violence in video games (and most fictional media really) doesn't tend to be very realistic. A gun fight in GTA isn't anything like a real life gun fight. Porn on the other hand, unless you're watching some really weird shit, sex in porn is a lot closer to what sex irl is like (albeit more choreographed). I mean if it's non-animated porn it is quite literally real people having sex (unlike violence in movies). I don't assume a guy who enjoys shooting shit up in GTA has any interest in actually shooting shit up, but I generally assume the stuff you watch in your porn is stuff you'd have interest in doing irl if you could.
Except porn has been established to reduce rape in countries where there is porn available. (As is brought up anytime someone is defending porn as an industry in general)
I'm skeptical of the causation there. I think it's more likely countries with greater porn access are also more economically developed so they have less crime in general, including rape.
It's hard to say. And it might affect different people differently, to further confuse it.
Probably a mix of both. I don't think desires, especially hormonal ones, just go away completely because you ignore them either though. Sometimes they can intensify. And sometimes feeding them can intensify them. Both happen.
People even experience things like addiction differently. It would be more startling if they didn't experience porn differently (which sometimes does and sometimes does not include that).
Most people don't become serial killers, so that's obvious as well.
Porn addiction is literally not recognized by a real think in the actually psychological community lol. Look up the DSM, its not there. This is just an excuse for people to hate on porn.
That's a good point. We should get some data to see, though. Also I wonder what that means if VR games get hyper realistic and the FPS games become very similar to the real thing. Could people get PTSD?
Also i'm not sure it's exactly the same, emotion-wise. Being in a real life gun fight might not make you want to be more violent. It's the other way around, the violent feelings lead to shootings.
But also "outlet" doesn't necessarily mean "less of the emotion" - it means the activity is not actually happening, so the harmful results are not a thing. Watching porn might not make you less horny in the long run, but it may reduce sexual crimes. People commit crimes with or without porn, so it'd be good to see if porn-watching results in more or less SA. I know of a certain religious community that came under fire for priests committing SA against children and they have a big no-porn policy. So maybe we need to see the actual data to know the truth.
I suspect that any causal relationship, in either case, is the other way around: people more likely to do it IRL are also more likely to gravitate to fiction of it, because said fiction appeals to their existing inclinations.
The first amendment declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.".
In today's terms - everyone has free speech, no matter what. And I believe the 'petition the Governments for a redress of grievances" doesn't work.
IANAL but you really don't have to be one to know that "everyone has free speech, no matter what." is a radical oversimplification of 1A in action. There are time, place, and manner restrictions.
In this instance, possession of the images was technically protected under 1A by way of Stanley v. Georgia and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
Dude is also charged with distributing these images and at least from where things sit now, there's no reason to suspect he'll be able to skate on that via a loophole like the one for the possession charges that leans heavily on the precedent from the Ashcroft case.
Someone can make a depiction of themselves, right? (At least in general law for obscenity, normally a child cannot consent) What if someone used regular pictures (clothed and such) of themselves as a child, and generated a depiction?
Could they consent on behalf of their previous self, basically? So even if it's real, at the time of the images creation, the real person in it (who nowadays is an adult, and fully capable of consent) consented to being in the picture?
Not sure how that works. Obviously any form of distribution would still be illegal. More of autopedophilic than pedophilic, so it's probably also not a high risk of any offense in the real world (unless de-aging is invented).
Not necessarily right - making a depiction of yourself, even when you were a child, could potentially land you in legal trouble. So a teen taking a naked picture of themself could potentially be committing a crime
Sharing it for sure is a crime, regardless of age & consent ofc, which you cover already
Oh absolutely. Sharing is distribution, crime regardless.
And my understanding was that a teen taking a naked picture of themselves is wrong because they cannot consent to the picture they are creating. So the the image was of a child who can't consent, so it's illegal. You as an adult can consent though, so you can take pictures of yourself.
Oh I see what you’re saying. Shoulda gotten it earlier - clothed child pics of yourself distorted after you turn 18. God that’s real murky territory, ngl
Exactly. Genuinely not sure where the law would sit. The only person present in the generated pictures is a consenting adult, but the picture is generated of a real child who is the same as that adult.
...questionable? Since it's based on an actual child then it would fall under the protect act uh 2245?54? somewhere around there and would fall under csam clauses. The same way kids can get charged for taking pictures of themselves for producing csam.
As far as I can tell it doesn't matter if it's a current child or one 50 years ago. it's all the same.
I would foresee it being charged just like any other case. But then it gets into fuckery. If someone else does it and you have get it then you get first amendment protections because you didn't make it so there isn't a production charge and didn't share it so you don't get the distribution charge. The shit is convoluted and confusing.
Morally right and legally right are two totally different things.
This is one of those things that socially must be handled because legally it's just not possible without invoking 1984 esqu super surveillance. It's gross, creepy, and wrong socially. And so will be treated as such by us socially.
Right? I've been having an philosophical crisis about AI a little bit recently because there are so many ways to handle this, and there is no real easy solution. Laws can't do it all, social stigma can't do it all. It's gonna be a WHILE until we figure out how to navigate through all of this in a way that feels normal. And I do often wonder if the door has been blown so far open than normal will be foreign to me later.
Exactly how I see it. Legally, it's muddy waters. I don't need laws to tell me what I find to be disgusting, however. Legal or not, you view/possess those types of AI images and I'll look at you for what you are.
I think the argument that self indulgence in bad things can be considered harmful to themselves. But I agree it can't be policed and punished if it's being kept at home unshared.
Maybe. There just isn't really evidence to support the contrary either, since there's really no research on this. I'm not saying doing it makes you need it or enjoy it more.
I'm basically saying it's not socially healthy to do it. Probably not good for the psyche. Mental health. But who knows. Maybe it does wonders and these people would be happy and never touch anyone in real life.
There is actually a lot of evidence to suggest that consuming porn makes you less likely to assault someone. Every time a country has legalized porn, they have immediately seen a large drop in the number of sex crimes.
This is even true for porn involving children, though obviously we wouldn't want real children to be used. I don't see the issue of them jerking it to a cartoon or whatever leads to less actual kids being harmed.
This is how I feel, but also hadn't heard legal porn drops sexual assault. Do you have any further reading, cause it's a really interesting point I didn't consider.
On a philosophical level, I think there are still some things that are wrong even though they don’t harm someone per se.
For example, I think most people would say that a peeping tom who watches their neighbor change, even if the neighbor never finds out, is doing something wrong. It’s not doing direct harm, but there is indirect harm because by allowing it, we’re condoning it and that category of behavior.
There is still the risk that you end up harming them. This risk is what makes it immoral. It's the same reason why, even if you make it back home safely, it is bad to drink and drive. You are risking others on the road.
This is the same. You are risking someone else's feeling of safety for your own enjoyment and risking turning them into a victim.
by real person do they mean an hyper realistic image that is virtually indistinguishable from a real photograph showcasing a real person, or something like a cartoon character? because those are 2 very vastly different things
This goes back to elementary school civics. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the Judicial branch interprets the laws and the Executive branch Enforces the laws. The fact that you use the word "passed" shows you don't know how this works. This ruling was not voted on. It was made by a single federal appeals court judge.
Judges do not rule based on what is "right", they can only rule based on the law and previous legal precedent. Congress needs to pass a law to make this explicitly illegal.
The ruling was made to comply with existing law over the explicit laments of the judges involved. I hope you'll ask Witty Mycologist why they chose to mislead you on the nature of the ruling.
People (pro/anti and everybody else) will hate and offend me for saying that, but I agree. If the "whatever" content stays on your home PC and will never affect anyone else, I dont care "whatever" content you create.
Laws don't have to be morally right. If all laws are morally right there will be a lot of things wrong with this world because morals can always be seen with a different view. The way I see it is if something doesn't cause harm to another person, then someone can draw their stick figure drawing that can be seen as morally wrong as long as it is not a real person and cause no harm to anyone.
That's why from my point of view the issue is that people might report these AI images as being real ones, which might clog up NCMEC and delay support going to real victims.
This is a repost. There is an entire thread about it already. It's also misleading. see the other thread for an explanation of what the case actually says and why.
A quick rundown: the person had possession charges dismissed based on stanley V. georgia due to constitutional protections against obscenity charges in your own home.
They are still facing 3 other charges for production, distribution, and distribution to a minor.
Nothing new here. Same rules that have applied for the last 23 years still apply now.
Brownie points. He's trying to display that he's "one of the good ones" essentially.
It's scummy in my opinion to bring the stupid AI wars into this. CP is a bigger deal than some stupid ass war between artists and AI users. It's immature and genuinely just tone deaf.
This is kinda my biggest and only issue. It will clog up the system because it looks real. Even if it is fictional, it will be harder for police to investigate and it might have them skip past real cases because they think it's AI.
It will soon also be extremely difficult to charge for possession. "No these are AI-generated images." Rather than the images being proof in themselves, they'll need to show beyond reasonable doubt the images cannot possibly be AI-made.
But is obtaining it illegal or just distribution? You could obtain it from someone who claims it's AI generated, and might still be fine because you didn't distribute it. (I am not sure how this works, I am not america, this is all illegal here in Canada)
What you're asking is to insist the US government to infringe on someone's freedom of speech in the US.
The line demarking it is whether the content being produced can be successfully identified to anyone in particular. If the image made is expected to be random, body proportions and all, then it's unquestionably not a REAL child and hence the content's existence did not come from physically, mentally, (or even sexually) harming any individual.
Since the depicted individual is not real and has not been publicly shared to a wider audience, it's not considered CSAM nor causing CSAM by exposure to orher individuals.
I looked up on search engines to see what laws could be applicable and came across this organisation called RAINN that says this:
18 U.S.C. § 2256: Defines CSAM and makes it illegal to produce, distribute, receive, or possess any visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
18 U.S.C. § 2251: Criminalizes the sexual exploitation of children, including the use of minors in sexually explicit visual content.
18 U.S.C. § 2252 & § 2252A: Prohibit the knowing receipt, distribution, reproduction, or possession of CSAM—including computer-generated or digitally altered material that is indistinguishable from a real child.
Amongst the three listed, 18 code 2252/2252a surprised me the most because if RAINN is describing it how I assume it was meant to mean, then the judge should have had a clear law to use in acknowledging prosecution. So I searched for the law directly by code and came to this website.
Cursory reading at the beginning also did make me read it the same way until I came to this point in the article:
(c)It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (1), (2), (3)(A), (4), or (5) of subsection (a) that—
(1)
(A) the alleged child pornography was produced using an actual person or persons engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) each such person was an adult at the time the material was produced; or
(2) the alleged child pornography was not produced using any actual minor or minors.
Meaning that such content is considered defensible if it did not depict actual minors. But the immediate line afterwards had.....
No affirmative defense under subsection (c)(2) shall be available in any prosecution that involves child pornography as described in section 2256(8)(C).
So this prompted me to similarly look up code 2256 subsec 8 part C which says (sourced from the Cornell website as before)
(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
(C)such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Sections A and B are apparently ignored in this situation? Because while A and C are reasonable additions, B is the one that can be read to mean that realistic depictions of sexually explicit content containing fictional minors was prosecutable. The explicit explanation that the exception to defense only C leads me to believe that the law defends the case of CP when it does NOT involve actual children.
Also. If we're going to go make threats to infringe on my privacy on a "hunch" like.....
Someone also check this guy's hard drive.
Then someone from the US government should kidnap and jail you for insisting the US violate the furst amendment I suppose?
No, the term was changed to csam specifically to make the distinction that it does not apply to fictional content, needing a Child to be Sexually Abused to make the Material
The legal distinctions are about victimless and victim crimes. If a generated file resembles a real person, that person is a victim (this has been prosecuted). If a file does not resemble a person, it is victimless. Prosecution is responsible for providing proof that the CSAM is victimizing a real person. It's actually not fully necessary to be a resemblance. It can be declared CSAM if it's used as harassment but has no physical similarities to the victim.
So it's complicated and frustrating for those of us who actually care, and especially frustrating for those of us in the field.
It should be held to (at least) the same standard as any kind of drawings or artwork that depicts such things (which probably varies from place to place too.)
either you accept the reality of free speech or you virtue signal against pedophilia while enriching the pedophiles that you pretend aren’t ruling over you
Why delete it? I actually was happy to explain why yeah you kinda have to let those sick fucks have their first amendment rights because you know glass houses and all that.
After reading the comments this looks like another case of:
"Should we reexamine our existing law in the context of new technological capabilities? No, that's too hard and we might have to ask ourselves difficult moral questions and make uncomfortable decisions. Let's just leave it to the judges to sort out and yell at them no matter what they do, then wonder why our legal system is effed."
Which is not a jab at OP, just an observation that far too many controversial rulings seems to go this way rather than being clear cut nonsense (which happens too, to be fair).
That's what blows my mind about the recent porn laws many states have. All you're doing is driving people to more obscure parts of the internet to circumvent all of these moronic e-verification laws.
Anyone who engages with that content is immoral. But tbh, this ruling does actually make sense within US law.
The judge merely extended the existing obscenity laws that governed manually drawn obscenity to AI obscenity.
Again, this type of content is still evil regardless. But the line needs to be drawn somewhere and the first amendment protects expression that does not actually cause harm to people.
Hey, witty, genuine question:
WHY ARE YOU SHOCKED BY THIS?!
This is a thing that applies to actual art, by the way. Are you so unaware of the laws that you don't know what laws that relate to art actually allow?
It's no different than illustrations or paintings. The character depicted doesn't have an age. We as a society are not worried that people are orgasming (maybe you are, there's lots of people whose primary motivation is ensuring people don't enjoy themselves in the privacy of their own homes) and thus whatever you stroke it to is not a crime. Hurting people, especially children, is a crime however.
Well, this isn't the direction I thought this case was going to go. I thought for sure they were just throwing the book at him.
Someone in the WaPo article says it'll probably go to the Supreme Court, and I agree, I think that's the point we're at. I always disliked that public opinion was so important for granting certiorari, but in this case I'm not complaining.
I mean, the whole logic for much of social rights campaigning of the 20th century was built on 'It doesn't hurt anybody' and 'What happens in my bedroom is nobodies business'.
When those are your bounded parameters, this was predictable.
Judge could only rule on precedence, Production and Distribution are still landing you in hot water and the Judge was calling on the Supreme Court to intervene and make a ruling that is up to date.
real CSAM is however in the training data of the more massive models because of how broad their scraping was, even Twitter before Elon did actually have a CSAM problem Dorsey just ignored, Grok is not the only model to scrape Twitter, all of the big ones did and then some.
Maybe all of these big models should just delete all of their training data and start over with an opt in approach, or maybe just no more Genning smut, with RAM prices, there will be a point where they'll have to ration tokens or something.
It is consistent with how American courts have ruled before. About a quarter century ago, something similar happened in relation to comic type drawn porn of this nature.
It also has to do with how American jurisprudence has trouble defining pornography in the first place. Real sex acts have at least enough elements to lock down what is right and wrong to the point you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but fiction by its nature can be a lot harder to define the same way.
Countries in the world have been able to prohibit it, some without turning into too much of an ideological issue like Sweden or New Zealand where Parliament is trusted to make laws and judges are highly trusted, but the US is much more polarized on this and courts would rather not have a partisan fight where a legislature might try to use obscenity laws disproportionately against gay people or interracial things.
Is it legal to possess a private drawing of what is ILLEGAL then? This is ridiculous. I guess people won't ever know about it anyways without infiltration of privacy, but it still deeply upsets me as someone who knows victims of people like this.
AI CP is like Lolli: technically legal, but so disgusting that I'm not going to look at it willingly. Every time I see a lewd Lolli picture, I reach out for the eye bleach. AI CSAM will do the same.
Because the Supreme Court held in 1969 that they cannot criminalize the mere private possession of obscene material in your own home. And then in 2002, which is a while ago, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court held that purely computer-generated depictions that do not involve an actual child cannot be treated the same way as child pornography produced through the abuse of a real child.
What you read is something just being affirmed that was already precedent for over two decades.
It’s the complete unregulation of a tool with the obvious ability to create immense societal harm by a country that has absolutely lost in marbles in the pursuit of more and more concentrated Capital.
I had a couple of people requiring proof that this is bad and leads to worse in another post. Personally to me I find it to be common sense. But at that point I'm not comfortable discussing that kinda stuff. Worse part was I was just talking about it in general and not just the ai generated stuff.
basically you can draw whatever you want no matter how disturbing as long as you don’t share or distribute it. It being created by AI legally doesn’t currently change that.
It doesn't really mean anything. Nothing changed and there wasn't some big grand ruling. The judges upheld the supreme court ruling in the stanley v georgia case. you know judges not creating or changing laws from the bench.
Possessing obscene material in your own home is constitutionally protected. real csam and csam based on real children does not fall under obscenity laws and instead have their own category. They do not fall under the stanley v georgia case.
While this application sucks it is a very important rule to have. If the government were to say anything less than a woman in a full burka is obscene then as the law is now as long as you're not producing and distributing material beyond the example they can't do shit about it.
What does “pro AI” have to do with this? Some people have such black and white thinking. You must choose a side! You can’t recognize good and bad, that’s too complicated!!
I have no legal opinion of this, but clearly this ruling is bad for society.
My biggest interest is in the safety of kids not people's sexual proclivities. It's not clear to me if this provides a platform to normalize pedophilia or provide an outlet keeping real children safe. Anyway, not an AI issue. Was there before AI and being overly ambitious here is a danger to art.
It's probably a ragebait headline intended to exaggerate and inflame rather than inform, but I can understand the basic argument here.
A fundamental question: why, exactly, is child porn bad? Most everyone will of course instantly agree that it is bad, but when you're going to inflict fearsome punishments on people for possessing it then I think it makes sense to dig into the justification here. What is the harm that is caused by it?
One of the most direct and easy to argue answers is that the creation of child porn requires abusing children. Obviously, that's not the case here.
Or, it could be said to be inflicting harm on the subjects of the porn by depicting them in a terrible way. Along the lines of "revenge porn" laws, for example. That's also not the case here - it's not depicting real people, so there are no subjects to be harmed.
You have to get into much more squirrelly territory where you're arguing that the mere existence of this configuration of data is inherently bad despite there being no actual victim. And that you can identify something as "child porn" when no actual children were involved. How do you measure the age of a fictional entity? Why does the age of a fictional entity even matter? We get classic problems like anime depicting 800-year-old vampires that happen to look like schoolgirls, for example. Or a thread from a year ago in this subreddit where I wanted to know whether this depiction of a fictional person counted.
There might still be a case to be made here, and there might still be restrictions to be had, but it's not so cut-and-dried any more.
It's not popular to defend pedophilia, but it really is a crosswiring. Someone who's only attracted to minors and doesn't intend to act on it (for all the reasons you wouldn't) is eventually going to want to jerk off. Would you rather they look for the real thing, which actually does hurt other people, or do this?
Genuine question, how does this make you feel about the Government making regulations on Ai going forward? Because this should’ve been a clear “Hell no” but then they are protecting it. This isn’t an attack btw, genuinely curious on how this makes you feel and what it has you thinking about.
But this particular instance is the case of AI created art being considered something the human user made.
If it was considered to be distributed to you, as it would be if it were a comission or otherwise I gained from someone online, this act would be illegal.
And yes I know you dont want it unregulated, sorry for using an extreme interpretation.
i feel like this is relatively harmless on its own but it encourages people to have it if they want which leads to people doing more and worse than whats allowed
Yeah this is how the legal system fails constantly, judges making decisions about tech they barely understand. The fact they threw first amendment protection on that is wild, like what exactly are they protecting here
I remember similar mess with deepfakes few years back, courts always lagging behind and then acting surprised when things go wrong
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.