25 arrested in global hit against AI-generated child sexual abuse material
-
Ehhhhh...
It also borders on real CSAM
Paracetamol "borders on" poison, but isn't.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and there are actual consequences here. We need to do better.
-
I think it's pretty stupid. Borders on Thought Crime kind of stuff.
I'd rather see that kind of enforcement and effort go towards actually finding people who are harming children.
This is also my take: any person can set up an image generator and churn any content they want. Focus should be on actual people being trafficed and abused.
-
Even in cases when the content is fully artificial and there is no real victim depicted, such as Operation Cumberland, AI-generated CSAM still contributes to the objectification and sexualisation of children.
I get how fucking creepy and downright sickening this all feels, but I'm genuinely surprised that it's illegal or criminal if there's no actual children involved.
It mentions sexual extortion and that's definitely something that should be illegal, same for spreading AI generated explicit stuff about real people without their concent, involving children or adults, but idk about the case mentioned here.
It's certainly creepy and disgusting
It also seems like we're half a step away from thought police regulating any thought or expression a person has that those in power do not like
-
This post did not contain any content.
Followed swiftly by operation jizzberworld
-
Even in cases when the content is fully artificial and there is no real victim depicted, such as Operation Cumberland, AI-generated CSAM still contributes to the objectification and sexualisation of children.
I get how fucking creepy and downright sickening this all feels, but I'm genuinely surprised that it's illegal or criminal if there's no actual children involved.
It mentions sexual extortion and that's definitely something that should be illegal, same for spreading AI generated explicit stuff about real people without their concent, involving children or adults, but idk about the case mentioned here.
It would depend on the country. In the UK even drawn depictions are illegal. I assume it has to at least be realistic and stick figures don't count.
-
It would depend on the country. In the UK even drawn depictions are illegal. I assume it has to at least be realistic and stick figures don't count.
It sounds like a very iffy thing to police. Since drawn stuff doesn't have actual age, how do you determine it? Looks? Wouldn't be great.
-
It's not a gray area at all. There's an EU directive on the matter. If an image appears to depict someone under the age of 18 then it's child porn. It doesn't matter if any minor was exploited. That's simply not what these laws are about.
Bear in mind, there are many countries where consenting adults are prosecuted for having sex the wrong way. It's not so long ago that this was also the case in Europe, and a lot of people explicitly want that back. On the other hand, beating children has a lot of fans in the same demographic. Some people want to actually protect children, but a whole lot of people simply want to prosecute sexual minorities, and the difference shows.
17 year-olds who exchange nude selfies engage in child porn. I know there have been convictions in the US; not sure about Europe. I know that teachers have been prosecuted when minors sought help when their selfies were being passed around in school, because they sent the images in question to the teacher, and that's possession. In Germany, the majority of suspects in child porn cases are minors. Valuable life lesson for them.
Anyway, what I'm saying is: We need harsher laws and more surveillance to deal with this epidemic of child porn. Only a creep would defend child porn and I am not a creep.
It's not a gray area at all. There's an EU directive on the matter. If an image appears to depict someone under the age of 18 then it's child porn.
So a person that is 18 years old, depicted in the nude, is still a child pornographer if they don't look their age? This gives judges and prosecutors too much leeway and I could guarantee there are right-wing judges that would charge a 25yo because it could believed they were 17.
In Germany, the majority of suspects in child porn cases are minors. Valuable life lesson for them.
Is it though? I don't know about the penalties in Germany but in the US a 17yo that takes a nude selfie is likely to be put on a sex offender list for life and have their freedom significantly limited. I'm not against penalties, but they should be proportional to the harm. A day in court followed by a fair amount of community service should be enough of an embarrassment to deter them, not jail.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Not going to read the article, but I will say that I understand making hyper-realistic fictional CP illegal, because it would make limiting actual CP impossible.
As long as it’s clearly fictional though, let people get off to whatever imaginary stuff they want to. We might find it disgusting, but there are plenty of sexual genres that most people would find disgusting b yet shouldn’t be illegal.
-
It sounds like a very iffy thing to police. Since drawn stuff doesn't have actual age, how do you determine it? Looks? Wouldn't be great.
Imagine having to argue to a jury that a wolf-human hybrid with bright neon fur is underage because it isn’t similar enough to a wolf for dog years to apply.
-
Not going to read the article, but I will say that I understand making hyper-realistic fictional CP illegal, because it would make limiting actual CP impossible.
As long as it’s clearly fictional though, let people get off to whatever imaginary stuff they want to. We might find it disgusting, but there are plenty of sexual genres that most people would find disgusting b yet shouldn’t be illegal.
The only way to generate something like that is to teach it something like that from real images.
-
The only way to generate something like that is to teach it something like that from real images.
I don’t think this is actually true. Pretty sure if you feed it naked adults and clothed children it can figure out the rest.
-
It sounds like a very iffy thing to police. Since drawn stuff doesn't have actual age, how do you determine it? Looks? Wouldn't be great.
I mean that's the same thing with AI generated content. It's all trained on a wide range of real people, how do you know what's generated isn't depicting an underage person, which is why laws like this are really dangerous.
-
I don’t think this is actually true. Pretty sure if you feed it naked adults and clothed children it can figure out the rest.
That's not how these image generators work.
How would it know what an age appropriate penis looks like with our, you know, seeing one.
-
That's not how these image generators work.
How would it know what an age appropriate penis looks like with our, you know, seeing one.
considering style transfer models, you could probably just draw or 3d model unknown details and feed it that.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I totally agree with these guys being arrested. I want to get that out of the way first.
But what crime did they commit? They didn't abuse children...they are AI generated and do not exist. What they did is obviously disgusting and makes me want to punch them in the face repeatedly until it's flat, but where's the line here? If they draw pictures of non-existent children is that also a crime?
Does that open artists to the interpretation of the law when it comes to art? Can they be put in prison because they did a professional painting of a child? Like what if they did a painting of their own child in the bath or something? Sure the contents questionable but it's not exactly predatory. And if you add safeguards for these people could then not the predators just claim artistic expression?
It just seems entirely unenforceable and an entire goddamn can of worms...
-
considering style transfer models, you could probably just draw or 3d model unknown details and feed it that.
Again, that's not how image generators work.
You can't just make up some wishful thinking and assume that's how it must work.
It takes thousands upon housands of unique photos to make an image generator.
Are you going to draw enough child genetalia to train these generators? Are you actually comfortable doing that task?
-
I totally agree with these guys being arrested. I want to get that out of the way first.
But what crime did they commit? They didn't abuse children...they are AI generated and do not exist. What they did is obviously disgusting and makes me want to punch them in the face repeatedly until it's flat, but where's the line here? If they draw pictures of non-existent children is that also a crime?
Does that open artists to the interpretation of the law when it comes to art? Can they be put in prison because they did a professional painting of a child? Like what if they did a painting of their own child in the bath or something? Sure the contents questionable but it's not exactly predatory. And if you add safeguards for these people could then not the predators just claim artistic expression?
It just seems entirely unenforceable and an entire goddamn can of worms...
Exactly, which is why I'm against your first line, I don't want them arrested specifically because of artistic expression. I think they're absolutely disgusting and should stop, but they're not harming anyone so they shouldn't go to jail.
In my opinion, you should only go to jail if there's an actual victim. Who exactly is the victim here?
-
The only way to generate something like that is to teach it something like that from real images.
only way
That's just not true.
That said, there's a decent chance that existing models use real images, and that is what we should be fighting against. The user of a model has plausible deniability because there's a good chance they don't understand how they work, but the creators of the model should absolutely know where they're getting the source data from.
Prove that the models use illegal material and go after the model creators for that, because that's an actual crime. Don't go after people using the models who are providing alternatives to abusive material.
-
Even in cases when the content is fully artificial and there is no real victim depicted, such as Operation Cumberland, AI-generated CSAM still contributes to the objectification and sexualisation of children.
I get how fucking creepy and downright sickening this all feels, but I'm genuinely surprised that it's illegal or criminal if there's no actual children involved.
It mentions sexual extortion and that's definitely something that should be illegal, same for spreading AI generated explicit stuff about real people without their concent, involving children or adults, but idk about the case mentioned here.
Exactly. If there's no victim, there's no crime.
-
I mean that's the same thing with AI generated content. It's all trained on a wide range of real people, how do you know what's generated isn't depicting an underage person, which is why laws like this are really dangerous.
Exactly. Any time there's subjectivity, it's ripe for abuse.
The law should punish:
- creating images of actual underage people
- creating images of actual non-consenting people of legal age
- knowingly distributing one of the above
Each of those has a clearly identifiable victim. Creating a new work of a fictitious person doesn't have any clearly identifiable victim.
Don't make laws to make prosecution easier, make laws to protect actual people from becoming victims or at least punish those who victimize others.
