I also don't agree with the killer games thing, but humans are very adaptable as a species.

Normally that's a good thing, but in a case like this exposure to something shocking or upsetting can make it less shocking or upsetting over time (obviously not in every case). So, if AI is being used for something like this and being reported on isn't it possible that people might slowly get desensitized to it over time?

Only the real things are actual humans who have likely not consented to ever being in this database at all let alone having parts of their likeness being used for this horrific shit. There is no moral argument for this garbage:

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.

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?

It seems pretty understandable that companies wouldn't allow it, it's more that if it is illegal (like in some places) then that gets into really sketchy territory imo.

Why? Not pressing but just curious what the logic is

Nuanced take coming, take a breath:

I agree that Child Sexual Abuse is a horrible practice along with all other violence and oppression, sexual or not. But the attraction de facto exists and has done for thousands of years, even through intense taboos. It seems our current strategy of shaming and ignoring it has been ineffective. The definition of insanity being repeating the same thing expecting different results and all that.

Short of eugenics (and from previous trials maybe not even then) we might not be able to get rid of it.

So when do we try other ways of dealing with it?

I'm not saying generative AI is the solution, but I'm pretty sure denying harder isn't it either.

Very true, thanks for your sensitivity @dumbass

and it's wrong, too. it's not pornography, it's rape.

All the little girls it learned from.

Gen AI doesn't take cp content and recreates it. There wouldn't be a point of gen AI if that is the case. It knows what regular porn looks like and what a child looks like and it generates an image. With those inputs it can create something new and at the same time hurt nobody.

Technically speaking, if you post images of your child on social media, you have consented. If you never uploaded an image of your child online, you never need to worry.

Are you suggesting that this particular type of CP should be acceptable? (And suddenly "but I used AI" becomes a popular defence.)

I've been kind of on the fence about this but then research found that people who physically or verbally express their anger tend to get angrier or delay calming down. I wonder if there could be a similar pattern with this so now I'm hesitating.

Social media has been around a long time. It is not reasonable to expect people to think of technology they can’t imagine even existing ten years in the future when “consenting” to use a platform. Legally you are correct. Morally this is obviously terrible. Everything about how terms and conditions are communicated is designed to take advantage of people who won’t or are unable to parse its meaning. Consent needs to be informed.

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.

Sexuality is often treated as more complex a topic than emotions, but I found a similar meta-study The role of conditioning, learning and dopamine in sexual behavior: A narrative review of animal and human studies, 2014 concluding that conditioning and associative learning does occur around sexuality and can be used as basis for treatment.

From other sources I've read, there's so many influences going into sexuality that it's impossible to see how it develops, but from a layman's perspective I'd agree that not reinforcing child abuse probably makes it more rare.

My remaining issue is that with such a simplistic view, any non-normative sexuality can/should be conditioned away. We already have the abusive gay conversion camps, should we go back to do the same with polygamy, bdsm, porn? How much should fashion dictate what sexuality is allowed?

(Roman style orgies seem to have faded in popularity, but tantra and swinging seems to have risen lately, which should we conditioning away? Who decides?)

I don’t remember whether it was some news article or a discussion thread. But other people also suggested this might help during therapy and/or rehab. And they had the same argument in that nobody gets harmed in creating these.

As for uses outside of controlled therapy, I’d be afraid it might make people want the “real thing” at some point. And, as others already pointed out: Good luck proving to your local police that those photos on your laptop are all “fake”.

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.

It fetishes the subject's images, and nobody knows if it would lead to recivitism in child predators. It is generally accepted that producing drawings of CP alone is bad, let alone by AI. I remember some dude getting arrested at the Canadian border for sexual drawings of Bart and Lisa. Regardless, I would say that it is quite controversial and probably not what you'd want your company to be known for ...