[zdragnar]

Same as we have reasonable laws against possession and production of all sorts of illicit goods from meth to CSAM.

There's nothing new here that couldn't be done manually before; all that has changed is the speed at which it can be done.

[Clent]

And yet both of them have thriving markets. The market for adults being undressed will dwarf both.

I do not see any way a law will stop what is essentially math from being performed.

While everyone is worried about job losses and Skynet, these sort of side effects of accessible AI will be what fundamentally shift society.

[meheleventyone]

I mean murder is illegal and yet there are still murders. Ipso facto we should legalize murder forthwith! Checkmate pacifists!

[scarface_74]

All murders are non consensual how do you know if mudes are non consensual? Would it also be illegal to draw a nude picture of someone?

[meheleventyone]

We’re discussing non-consensual images.

[scarface_74]

Yes, so how do you determine whether an image on someone’s computer is consensual or non consensual? Where do you draw the line? If I draw an image that looks like someone and it’s only on my own computer?

[scarface_74]

So how do you determine if someone is in possession of non consensual nude pictures? We as a society properly assume that all underage nudity is non consensual because children can’t legally give consent to nice pictures

[concordDance]

Those are not reasonable laws.

[dymk]

But the creation/use of CSAM and meth harm people other than the person using them. I don't see who's being harmed if a model is used to generate a nude image, and that image isn't distributed.

[zdragnar]

I wasn't making a qualitative comparison of the harms, merely responding to the question of what kinds of laws and enforcement mechanisms will be used to stop AI pornification of people.

Simply put, I don't think we'll see anything we haven't seen before, because this isn't a new thing that hasn't been done before- only the means of production (using AI) is new.

[dymk]

I responded with a little more detail to a sibling content, but if laws for banning CSAM and meth exist due to the negative externalities of possessing them - that's where I think this is different. If we see laws come about for regulating AI private-use content production, I suspect we'll see some unique court cases about it, premised around free speech / lack of harm.

[concordDance]

The production and sale of CSAM and meth harms people, mere possession and consumption harms only the user.

[dymk]

I don't think the analogy to generative models holds. The possession and consumption of meth and CSAM _drive_ production of meth and CSAM; it's a supply and demand market. So simply possessing it harms others as well.

A generative model is different. You can produce as much content with it as you want, hallucinated out of thin air. The production of said content doesn't have externalities, other than electricity usage, if the content isn't distributed.

[concordDance]

> The possession and consumption of meth and CSAM _drive_ production of meth and CSAM

This is not true, its the buying of it that drives production. If you make your own meth or pirate CSAM then you would be harming only yourself.

[GoblinSlayer]

Possession and production can be done in imagination. After all, it's just information.