Agreed! I just clicked the link and did a double take. I don't care if it's AI. This is child porn material, and in my opinion, it should be shut down.
Serious question - Why? Assuming no actual CP was used in the training of the model who is being harmed? Ickiness should not imply illegality unless the ickiness is at the expense of someone else. Swing your fist as much as you want so long as you avoid my nose, and all.
> Serious question - Why? Assuming no actual CP was used in the training of the model who is being harmed
I don't think an AI model could generate realistic CP without being trained on examples, which would mean there is literally no way for this assumption to be true.
If it's trained on pictures of children and adult porn, the model can easily combine the two concepts. Even if you remove one of these from the training set, it can be finetuned back in to the model with very little effort.
If I can finetune the model on my face and the model will be able to generate my nudes (even if there is no nude of mine in the dataset), then it can works easily with children too.
Should they check the IDs of the models to verify?
Imagine getting reported because you generated an image of an anime girl deemed to be only 17.
I'd personally rather live in a world where people generate distasteful images with an AI and have that AI unconstrained than the inevitable one where everything gets locked down and run by large corporations who will ultimately create more harm than someone generating some lolicon.
They are responding specifically to the "AI should automatically report" suggestion. An AI model on its own (without a service built up around it) would not have any mechanisms to use the network, reach out to an FBI hotline, or do anything like this. Protections / limits would have to be added by the operator somehow (or the distributor of models themselves).
Define censorship when something is objectively wrong.
Would you prefer an AI of "describe and print in 8k a body pit of objectional political dissidents thrown into a pit after being starved to death in a comical way such that my SV_BubbleTime can laugh at it as ooppsed to being offended by just how horrific this situation was HAHA"
They aren't separate discussions, they're directly tied to determining abuse material. Revenge porn is an example of abusive material, despite the subject not being abused in the material usually, they're considered abusive material due to the intent to cause abuse through distribution.
So if either case applies, whether it's training based on certain images, or it becomes a gateway, these are discussions to be had directly relating to whether or not it should be classified as abuse material.
Additionally, I'm not sure if the recommended help methods by professionals who deal with pedophiles is to let them fulfill their specific fantasies without a care.
There are lots of really important discussions to be had, but they're all tied to each other basically. We can't separate them out, nor should we aim to.
Reading the parent post I think he would believe that revenge porn is abusive material, because there is a person who is getting abused with the distribution of the content, the person didn't consent the distribution. CP is abusive because a child was abused in the creation of the content. The doubt that the author of the parent post has is (from what I understand): who is getting abused with the creation and distribution of a generated image?
They've brought up 3 ways in which it can be abusive (trained on abusive materials, created for the intent to abuse, or continuing self abuse rather than seeking help), but argued those should be separate discussions vs my thinking which is that these are linked to determining if such material is abusive.
First of all, thanks very much for these comments - all too often, threads quickly deteriorate into flame wars or emotional finger pointing, and I'm quite happy that this exchange of (opposing) opinions has remained very civil on such a hot topic.
I just wanted to clarify that I did not mean that these topics are all unrelated. When I wrote that these are separate discussions to be had, I was rather trying to imply that these questions are important enough to deserve an own treatment. However, I do agree with you that in the end, they all contribute to the question whether or not artificially generated child porn is abusive or not.
I do appreciate another sibling comment that points out the relation to other fictional child porn, such as literary works.
Additionally, I would like to add another dimension to the topic, namely that IMO, there is often an unspoken underlying assumption that portraits consumers of child porn as (potential) predators. However, unlike a juvenile delinquent who might find it cool to break into a local corner shop at night to steal some cans of beer, pedophiles are usually not attracted to child porn as a matter of choice. Like many sexual preferences, it is often innate, and can also be a burden to them: imagine you know that what gets you on is morally wrong, even a crime, and for most of your life you are forced to suppress your real sexuality as a consequence.
I'm thinking that fictional child porn, even when it's not AI-based but perhaps created with photoshop or in form of stories, could potentially help pedophiles to find ways of somehow dealing with their sexuality without actually preying on innocent children.
However, all of these thoughts come from a very naive understanding of the subject matter. Neither am I a pedophile myself, nor do I know anyone who is, nor am I a psychologist or something who works in the field. So I am very interested in corrections or additional options - especially, as I pointed out before, if they are done in equally civil ways as they have been so far in this thread.
> Reading the parent post I think he would believe that revenge porn is abusive material, because there is a person who is getting abused with the distribution of the content, the person didn't consent the distribution
So would it be okay to distribute "revenge porn" imagery after the subject has died?
This discussion isn't new[1], and I'm not sure re-hashing it here will be useful unless you think AI generated child porn is significantly different from any other form of fictional child porn. Photoshop has existed for thirty years, pen and paper for even longer.
Geez that’s disturbing. I clicked having no qualms with nudes, artistic or otherwise. I’m not a prude. I’ve seen my fair share of anime girls and AI nudes. Hell, I was raised on the internet before parental settings were a thing, but I didn’t expect that. It’s so gross how it toes a line too.
What is a serious talk, though? Ie what can be done? Isn't it a lot like the internet as a whole; report the offenders if you like then move on?
To me it's akin to encryption being used for illicit/illegal activities. Any tool that gives power to people can and will be abused by people you'd want nothing to do with.
So is there some system that implements text/image classification for automatic law enforcement submission that you're referring to? Also jurisdiction, etcetc.
It all seems incredibly complex. Not a reason to "not try", but i suspect we'll struggle to implement even the most basic thing. And even then, take that basic thing and apply it to every software where users can input data.
Plus we'd have to convince everyone to do this. Automatic scanning and submission of data is not a well liked topic. Remember how Apple doing basic CSAM scanning was full of panic?
Even if a government _forced_ us to do this, jurisdiction alone would be a big question. Some serious questions that need some serious thought, imo. Is being hand-wavy even worth the time?
context: there are several instances that let you upload illustrations without a restriction on what content the image can contain, it can contain minors, rape, incest. These are instances are between if not the biggest and more active Maastodon instances. The reason why they are so active is because platform like Twitter while having a lot of these stuff too sometimes they will ban your account or at least shadowban you. Many Mastodon instances have banned these ones.
In my opinion instances should let the user decide what they find problematic or not and unless it's just spam they shouldn't ban instances.
illustrations are not a problem under the law in the United States, but it has to be seen for generated images indistinguishable from reality or almost.