[kleiba]

Who exactly is being abused here?

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.

[gochi]

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.

[GaggiX]

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?

[gochi]

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.

[kleiba]

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.

[wsintra2022]

“Neither am I a pedophile myself, nor do I know anyone who is“ Glad you cleared that up for the readers at home.

[GaggiX]

We live in a world where the author of parent post would be unironically accused of being a pedo by several people for having that opinion so don't be surprised.

[sangnoir]

> 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?

[GaggiX]

well no, the person didn't consent, where is the gotcha?

[HeyImAlex]

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.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...