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.

Who actually gets hurt in AI generated cp? The servers?

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.

Probably got all the data to train for it from the pentagon. They're known for having tons of it and a lot of their staff (more than 25%) are used to seeing it frequently.

Easily searchable, though I don't like to search for that shit, but here's 1 post if you literally add pentagon to c____ p___ in a search a million articles on DIFFERENT subjects (than this house bill) come up https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/451383-house-bill-aims-to-stop-use-of-pentagon-networks-for-sharing-child/

Making a photo of a child based off of real photos in a sexual manner is essentially using said child in the training data as the one in the act..

A&W root beer

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.

Even when consent is informed it can still be fucky. Do you think I want to consent to an arbitration agreement with my employer or a social media platform? Fuck no, but I want a job and interaction so I go where the money/people are. I can't hunt around for a place that will hire me and also doesn't have arbitration.

Consent at the barrel of a gun, No matter how well informed, is no consent at all.

What the fuck is AI being trained on to produce the stuff?

No cp should be acceptable. But I argue AI generated isn't cp.

This is no different than someone cutting out a child's head from a Target catalog and sticking it to a body on a playboy magazine and masturbating to it.

Or someone using Photoshoping a kids head to a pornographic photo.

It's just a more accessible version of those examples.

At the end of the day, what you do in your own home is your thing. t's not my business what you do. As long as it doesn't hurt/affect anyone, go ahead.

Pictures of clothed children and naked adults.

Nobody trained them on what things made out of spaghetti look like, but they can generate them because smushing multiple things together is precisely what they do.

I don't need to. It's is just the way gen AI works. It takes images of things it knows and then generates NEW content based on what it think you want with your prompts.

If I'm looking for a infant flying an airplane, gen AI knows what a pilot looks like and what a child looks like and it creates something new.

Also kids face data doesn't mean they take the actual face of the actual child and paste it on a body. It might take an eyebrow and a freckle from one kidand use a hair style from another and eyes from someone else.

Lastly, the kids parents consented when they upload images of their kids on social media.

When my dad worked for the DoD, he was assigned a laptop for work that had explicit photos of children on it.

Do you think I want to consent to an arbitration agreement

In many countries mandatory arbitration agreements in a B2C context are invalid. They have no legal power.

AI CP seems like a promising way to destroy demand for the real thing. How many people would risk a prison sentence making or viewing the real thing when they could push a button and have a convincing likeness for free with no children harmed? Flood the market with cheap fakes and makers of the real thing may not find it profitable enough to take the risk.

If you think that AI is only trained on legal images, I can't convince you otherwise.

If you think that AI is only trained on legal images, I can't convince you otherwise.

Wow so its from the duh region I'm france, here I thought it was just sparkling dumbass

This, above any other reason, is why I'm most troubled with AI CSAM. I don't care what anyone gets off to if no one is harmed, but the fact that real CSAM could be created and be indistinguishable from AI created, is a real harm.

And I instinctively ask, who would bother producing it for real when AI is cheap and harmless? But people produce it for reasons other than money and there are places in this world where a child's life is probably less valuable than the electricity used to create images.

I fundamentally think AI should be completely uncensored. Because I think censorship limits and harms uses for it that might otherwise be good. I think if 12 year old me could've had an AI show me where the clitoris is on a girl or what the fuck a hymen looks like, or answer questions about my own body, I think I would've had a lot less confusion and uncertainty in my burgeoning sexuality. Maybe I'd have had less curiosity about what my classmates looked like under their clothes, leading to questionable decisions on my part.

I can find a million arguments why AI shouldn't be censored. Like, do you know ChatGPT can be convinced to describe vaginal and oral sex in a romantic fiction is fine, but if it's anal sex, it has a much higher refusal rate? Is that subtle anti-gay encoding in the training data? It also struggles with polyamory when it's two men and a woman but less when it's two women and a man. What's the long-term impact when these biases are built into everyday tools? These are concerns I consider all the time.

But at the end of the day, the idea that there are children out there being abused and consumed and no one will even look for them because "it's probably just AI" isn't something I can bear no matter how firm my convictions are about uncensored AI. It's something I struggle to reconcile.

FYI, the current accepted term is csam. Children sexual abuse material. The reason why CP is wrong is that porn implies, or should imply, that there's consent on the sexual act, and children cannot consent.

You are right, it's a disgusting merger exactly because it implies something that's absolutely incorrect and wrong.