GenAI website goes dark after explicit fakes exposed
-
What AI are you talking about? Are you suggesting the commercial models from OpenAI are trained using CP? Or just that there are some models out there that were trained using CP? Because yeah, anyone can create a model at home and train it with whatever. But suggesting that OpenAI has a DB of tagged CP is a different story.
Open AI just scours the Internet. 100% chance it's come across someone illegal and horrible. They don't pre-approve its training data.
-
I mean, you're not giving a very convincing argument.
AI models are trained on the open Internet. Not curated. Open Internet has horrible things.
-
Open AI just scours the Internet. 100% chance it's come across someone illegal and horrible. They don't pre-approve its training data.
But you have to describe it. It doesn't just suck in images at random. I imagine someone will remove CP when the images are reviewed. Or do you think they just download all images and add them to the training set without even looking at them?
-
If we are pedantic, I'm not sure if "children cannot consent" is correct. Children at 16 are mature enough to give consent in legal context, we as a society just frown upon older adults mingling with them.
buddy, theres a whole range of ages between 0 and 16, and i use that number 0 advisedly.
-
If we are pedantic, I'm not sure if "children cannot consent" is correct. Children at 16 are mature enough to give consent in legal context, we as a society just frown upon older adults mingling with them.
When I was 16 I would have totally posed for porn and I would have been completely consenting. But it would have been illegal. I wonder where we should draw the line, and if the current one is the best one.
-
When my dad worked for the DoD, he was assigned a laptop for work that had explicit photos of children on it.
For what scope would they do that?
-
If we are pedantic, I'm not sure if "children cannot consent" is correct. Children at 16 are mature enough to give consent in legal context, we as a society just frown upon older adults mingling with them.
Legally speaking children can't consent, which is why it's illegal and the basis of my statement. I wasn't being pedantic, I was showing a new terminology.
-
Generated AI CP should be illegalized even if its creation did not technically harm anyone. The reason is, presumably it looks too close to real CP, so close that it: 1) normalizes consumption of CP, 2) grows a market for CP, and 3) Real CP could get off the hook by claiming it is AI.
While there are similar reasons to be against clearly not real CP (e.g. hentai), this type at least does not have problem #3. For example, there doesnt need to be an investigation into whether a picture is real or not.
Fun fact it's already illegal. If it's indistinguishable from the real thing it's a crime.
-
AI models are trained on the open Internet. Not curated. Open Internet has horrible things.
So is that the Gen AI problem or the open internets problem. It sounds like you hate the open internet and awful people who put real cp online and not Gen AI.
-
What the fuck is AI being trained on to produce the stuff?
if you have a soup of all liquids and a sieve that only lets coffee and ice cream through it produces coffee ice cream (metaphor, don't think too hard about it)
that's how gen ai works. each step sieves out raw data to get closer to the prompt.
-
But what if pedophiles in therapy are less likely to commit a crime if they have access to respective porn? Even better then, if it can be AI generated, no?
Japan is country that has legal drawn cp. It's available in physical store and online. Yet Japan is much lower than most developed country in the world in terms of actual sexual child abuse.
-
For what scope would they do that?
All laptops are supposed to be formatted and have the necessary software freshly installed before being assigned to someone. Either it wasn't wiped by accident, or the person whose job it was found the CP and left it, hoping my dad would report it. He deleted it, though, because was afraid he'd be blamed.
-
But who is actually getting hurt? No kid has gotten hurt using Gen AI.
A child whose abuse images are used to generate AI CP can be re-victimized by it, without even getting at the issues with normalizing it.
-
The biggest issue with this line of thinking is, how do you prove it's CP without a victim. I suppose at a certain threshold it becomes obvious, but that can be a very blurry line (there was a famous case where a porn star had to be flown to a court case to prove the video wasn't CP, but can't find the link right now).
So your left with a crime that was committed with no victim and no proof, which can be really easy to abuse.
This sort of reminds myself on the discussion on "what is a women". Is Siri a women? Many might say so, but t the same time Siri is not even human.
The question on how old the person on a specific generated image might be and if it even depicts a person at all, can only be answered through society. There is no scientific or any logical answer for this.
So this will always have grey areas and differing opinions and can be rulings in different cultures.
In the end it is about discussions about ethics not logic.
-
This sort of reminds myself on the discussion on "what is a women". Is Siri a women? Many might say so, but t the same time Siri is not even human.
The question on how old the person on a specific generated image might be and if it even depicts a person at all, can only be answered through society. There is no scientific or any logical answer for this.
So this will always have grey areas and differing opinions and can be rulings in different cultures.
In the end it is about discussions about ethics not logic.
Definitely, and that's why hard/strict laws or rules can be dangerous. Much like the famous "I know it when I see it" judgment on obscenity.
-
Fun fact it's already illegal. If it's indistinguishable from the real thing it's a crime.
I was under the impression that even clearly drawn it's already illegal, though it's a grey area since they can say "lol it's a 1000 year old demon that just looks like a child." Is that not the case?
-
Definitely, and that's why hard/strict laws or rules can be dangerous. Much like the famous "I know it when I see it" judgment on obscenity.
Well my point is that pretty much all of our laws are build around ethic values, which are developed within a society. There is no logical or scientific reason that would make killing other people bad, but we still should have strict rules about this.
Laws are always built around soft things like "what is obscene", "at what point is someone naked in public", "How much alcohol can a drink have before it is a alcoholic beverage?", "did the person die of natural causes, or was killed by some event years ago, that wasn't properly treated."
Society decides what is acceptable and what isn't and that changes through time and culture.
Your argument is therefore not a good one, you have to make a case based on ethics.
-
The fact that you don't need to actually supply any real CSAM to the training material is the reasoning being offered for supporting AI CSAM. It's gross, but it's also hard to argue with.
Yeah, this is basically the crux of the issue. When you get into the weeds and start looking at more than just surface-level “but it needs CSAM to make CSAM” misconception, arguments against it basically boil down to “but it’s icky.” Which… Yeah. It is. But should something being icky automatically make it illegal, even if there are no victims?
I hate to make the comparison (for a variety of reasons) but until fairly recently homosexuality was psychologically classed as a form of destructive/dangerous kink. Largely because straight people had the same “but it’s icky” response whenever it got brought up. And we have tried to move away from that as time has passed, because we have recognized that being gay is not just a kink, it’s not just a choice, and it’s not inherently dangerous or harmful.
To contrast that, pedophilia has remained stigmatized. Because even if it passed the first two “it’s not just a kink/choice” tests, it still failed the “it’s not harmful” test. Consuming CSAM was inherently harmful, and always had a victim. There was no ethical way to view CSAM. But now with AI, it can actually begin passing that third test as well.
I don't know how I feel about it, myself. The idea of "ethically-sourced" CSAM doesn't exactly sit right with me, but if it's possible to make it in a truly victimless manner, then I find it hard to argue outright banning something just because I don't like it.
This is really the biggest hurdle. To be clear, I’m not arguing that being an active pedo should be decriminalized. But it is worth examining whether we’re basing criminality purely off of the instinctual “but it’s icky” response that the public has when it gets discussed. And is that response enough of a justification for making/keeping it illegal? And if your answer to that was “yes”, what if it could help pedos avoid consuming real CSAM, and therefore reduce the number of future victims? If it could legitimately help reduce the number of victims but you still want to criminalize it, then you are not actually focused on reducing harm; You’re focused on feeling righteous instead.
-
There is also the angle of generated CSAM looking real adding difficulty in prosecuting real CSAM producers.
This is actually why I’d be in favor of AI generators creating a hash database of their generated images. If legalized, they should be required to maintain records of the images they have produced. So that if those images appear elsewhere, they can be verified as AI generated.
It would be a monumental effort to actually get the AI companies to agree to it willingly. But that’s why legislation exists.
-
So is that the Gen AI problem or the open internets problem. It sounds like you hate the open internet and awful people who put real cp online and not Gen AI.
If you're selling a service, I expect you to know where your parts come from and what's in it.
