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?
you just need you search text, the prompt, for things normal people wouldn’t search for, not at all complex. nobody normal asks AI to create child pornography
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.
I for one would much rather give pedophiles an opportunity to fulfil their sexual desires through AI-generated pictures than real ones.
Of course, we can talk about the training material. Are there actual child porn images in there? I seriously doubt it but who knows?
And perhaps a case could be made that AI-generated child porn could be a gateway to invite people who then seek out non-generated material.
But I think these are separate discussions to be had.