• @DaveA
    link
    1325 days ago

    What is the AI trained on?

    • FaceDeer
      link
      fedilink
      5425 days ago

      Image-generating AI is capable of generating images that are not like anything that was in its training set.

      • @DaveA
        link
        025 days ago

        In that case probably the strongest argument is that if it were legal, many people would get off charges of real CSAM because the prosecuter can’t prove that it wasn’t AI generated.

        • FaceDeer
          link
          fedilink
          2225 days ago

          Better a dozen innocent men go to prison than one guilty man go free?

          • @DaveA
            link
            4
            edit-2
            25 days ago

            In this case if they know it’s illegal, then they knowingly broke the law? Things are still illegal even if you don’t agree with it.

            Most (many?) Western countries also ban cartoon underage content, what’s the justification for that?

            • FaceDeer
              link
              fedilink
              1025 days ago

              You suggested a situation where “many people would get off charges of real CSAM because the prosecuter can’t prove that it wasn’t AI generated.” That implies that in that situation AI-generated CSAM is legal. If it’s not legal then what does it matter if it’s AI-generated or not?

              • @DaveA
                link
                125 days ago

                That’s not quite what I was getting at over the course of the comment thread.

                It one scenario, AI material is legal. Those with real CSAM use the defense that it’s actually AI and you can’t prove otherwise. In this scenario, no innocent men are going to prison, and most guilty men aren’t either.

                The second scenario we make AI material illegal. Now the ones with real CSAM go to prison, and many people with AI material do too because it’s illegal and they broke the law.

                • FaceDeer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  625 days ago

                  This comment thread started with you implying that the AI was trained on illegal material, I’m really not sure how it’s got to this point from that one.

            • HubertManne
              link
              fedilink
              324 days ago

              Im completely against restrictions on art depictions and writing. Those don’t have the dangers of being real but being pawned off as fake.

            • FaceDeer
              link
              fedilink
              125 days ago

              The comment I’m responding to is proposing a situation in which it isn’t illegal.

          • Chainweasel
            link
            fedilink
            English
            025 days ago

            If it’s illegal, and they produce the AI CSAM anyway, they’ve broken the law and are by definition not Innocent.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -9
            edit-2
            25 days ago

            To be honest, if it prevents that one guilty man from carrying out such high degrees of abuse to a dozen children, I can’t say I’d say no.

            I want to stress that this isn’t sensationalist grandstanding like wanting to ban rock music or video games or spying on all digital communication in the name of protecting the children. It’s just the pragmatic approach towards preventing CSAM in an age where the “know it when I see it” definition of pornographic material is starting to blur the lines.

            • FaceDeer
              link
              fedilink
              925 days ago

              Well, your philosophy runs counter to the fundamentals of Western justice systems, then.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -3
                edit-2
                24 days ago

                Why is that? I’d consider this equivalent to the (justified) banning of Nazi imagery in countries like Germany, Austria, Norway, Australia, etc.

                No one is harmed by a piece of paper or cloth with a symbol on it, but harm happens because of the symbol’s implications.

                “Authorized” AI-generated or illustrated depictions of CSAM validate the sexualization of children in general, and should not be permitted, in my opinion. If it enables real CSAM to continue, then AI-generated content is not victimless, and therefore I don’t think these hypothetical individuals going to prison for it are necessarily innocent.

                • FaceDeer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  3
                  edit-2
                  25 days ago

                  It’s not the specific thing being made illegal, it’s the underlying philosophy of “Better a dozen innocent men go to prison than one guilty man go free” I’m arguing against here. Most western justice systems operate under a principle of requiring guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is doubt then guilt cannot be considered proven and the person is not convicted.

                  The comment I’m responding to is proposing a situation where non-AI-generated images are illegal but AI-generated ones aren’t, and that there’s no way to tell the difference just by looking at the image itself. In that situation you couldn’t convict someone merely based on the existence of the image because it could have been AI-generated. That’s fundamental to the “innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt” philosophy I’m talking about, to do otherwise would mean that innocent people could very easily be convicted of crimes they didn’t do.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    025 days ago

                    I guess we disagree on the criteria for innocent. I don’t see possession of such images as an innocent act, especially now that it is impossible to verify what is real or fake.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1825 days ago

          If it has images of construction equipment and houses, it can make images of houses that look like construction equipment. Swap out vocabulary as needed.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -1225 days ago

            Cool, how would it know what a naked young person looks like? Naked adults look significantly different.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -1125 days ago

                Is a kid just a 60% reduction by volume of an adult? And these are generative algorithms… nobody really understands how it perceives the world and word relations.

                • FaceDeer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1225 days ago

                  It understands young and old. That means it knows a kid is not just a 60% reduction by volume of an adult.

                  We know it understands these sorts of things because of the very things this whole kerfuffle is about - it’s able to generate images of things that weren’t explicitly in its training set.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -725 days ago

                    But it doesn’t fully understand young and “naked young person” isn’t just a scaled down “naked adult”. There are physiological changes that people go through during puberty which is why the “It understands young vs. old” is a clearly vapid and low effort comment. Yours has more meaning behind it so I’d clarify that just being able to have a vague understanding of young and old doesn’t mean it can generate CSAM.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      125 days ago

      Very, very good point. Depending on the answer, I retract the “victimless” narrative.