In this video I discuss how generative AI technology has grown far past the governments ability to effectively control it and how the current legislative measures could lead to innocent people being jailed.
You must log in or register to comment.
There is no such thing.
God dammit, the entire point of calling it CSAM is to distinguish photographic evidence of child rape from made-up images that make people feel icky.
If you want them treated the same, legally - go nuts. Have that argument. But stop treating the two as the same thing, and fucking up clear discussion of the worst thing on the internet.
You can’t generate assault. It is impossible to abuse children who do not exist.
Did nobody in this comment section read the video at all?
The only case mentioned by this video is a case where highschool students distributed (counterfeit) sexually explicit images of their classmates which had been generated by an AI model.
I don’t know if it meets the definition of CSAM because the events depicted in the images are fictional, but the subjects are real.
These children do exist, some have doubtlessly been traumatized by this. This crime has victims.
I think a lot of people are arguing that the models which are used to generate these types of content are trained on literal CSAM. So it’s like CSAM with extra steps.
Those people are morons.
In most (all?) countries no such distinction is made, the material is illegal all the same.
While lolicon is absolutely disgusting, its not actually csam. Legislation won’t work either and is honestly a waste of time. Any effort spent protecting digital children should instead be spent protecting real ones.
The problem is that it’s not just cartoon characters, but also realistic looking people. That makes it, especially in the next years when the techniques improve, impossible to know what is fake and what is not and thus the fake ones should also be banned. And these models are trained on images of actual abused children, which of course is the main problem with this.
In general terms, making an idea illegal, and then making representations of that idea illegal, are going to be forever, at best to treadmill, and at worst reduce the effectiveness and reputation of law.
This is really about thought crime. If somebody can draw stick figures, and that can be illegal depending on interpretation. That’s thought crime.
It’s impossible to completely stamp out thought crime. Computer tools can be used to further thought crime, because they can be used for creative purposes.
If you restrict the use of creative tools, to only a trusted few, or hobble tools for everyone: you create central authority over creative tools, which has its own issues.
This is especially damning on the internet, because genuinely intolerable pursuits directly benefit from lesser problems being treated as equally bad. Filesharing networks work better with more users. Chasing merely distasteful people toward paranoid systems softens the reputation of those systems and makes the worst minority of traffic easier to hide.
It’s impossible to completely stamp out thought crime.
Also, trying to do so through law and enforcement sets a dangerous precedent.
I suspect it would be better to approach it as a public health issue.
And then you run into legal arguments that sound like people trying to jailbreak GPT prompt control.
I’m going to preface all of the following creative work by saying that we live in a universe where everyone is a vampire that never dies, but ages very slowly. All participants in this manga are at least 213 years old…
Loli stuff isn’t CSAM. You can find it bad, but its still just a drawing/generative image. No real person was harmed in general.
deleted by creator
You know, loli can also just mean flat chest and young looking, it doesn’t mean its portraying a actual child… And nope. Therefore you can’t guarantee shit you pull out of your ass. Many of those watching such stuff find actual children very disgusting.
I am not sure how a person that looks like a child and has a very childish voice can only be a “young looking” adult.
Strictly speaking this counts as loli as well…
deleted by creator
Didn’t watch the video, but I don’t care about AI CSAM. Even if it looks completely lifelike, it’s not real.
Prove it’s fake when some of it of your daughter is making it’s way around school.
You’ve missed the point. Fake or not it does damage to people. And eventually it won’t be possible to determine if it’s real or not.
When that becomes widespread, photos will be generateable for literally everyone, not just minors but every person with photos online. It will be a societal shift; images will be assumed to be AI generated, making any guilt or shame about a nude photo existing obselete.
What a disguising assumption. And the best argument against AI I’ve ever heard.
I mean, anyone with enough artistic talent can draw whatever they would like right now. With AI image generation, it essentially just gives everyone the ability to draw whatever they want. You can try to fight the tech all you want, but it’s a losing battle.
You may not like it, but do you really see another likely scenario?
Disguising or disgusting?
AI generated porn depicting real people seems like a different and much bigger issue
AI generated CSAM in general, while disgusting, at least doesn’t directly harm people, fabricated nudes most definitely does, regardless of the age of the victim
You just implied children aren’t real people.
AI generated nudes of noone in particular isn’t hurting anyone, not directly at least, but AI generated nudes of a specific person, using that persons likeness and everything, that’s much worse
AI can generate faces of people that don’t actually exist, that’s what i mean
The post made it seem like it was about AI generated CSAM in general, which while disgusting, doesn’t directly harm anyone, but then the comments spoke about AI generated CSAM depicting a real individual, and that’s much worse, but also not a problem that’s specific to children
What data is it trained on? This isn’t meant to be a “gotcha” question, I’m wondering about it.
An image of an “avocado chair” is built on images of avocados, and images of chairs.
Eh, if you train a ai with CSAM to make more CSAM that a different story. But in general yes.
Me: I just want real looking dinosaurs with cool, long flowing hair.
The edp picture is very funny
Creating, collecting and sharing CSAM is in the law already. There are orgs and agencies for tracking and prosecuting these violations.
It’s like fighting against 3d printers because you can make yourself a diy gun, a thing that have never being possible before because we got all pipes banned from hardware stores. The means to produce fictional CSAM always existed and would exist, the problem is with people who use a LMM, a camera, a fanfic to create and share that content. Or a Lemmy community that was a problem in recent months.
It’s better to ensure the existing means of fighting such content are effective and society is educated about this danger, know how to avoid and report it.
Couldn’t the fact that AI generated content be reproduceable if give the exact parameters(or coordinates in latent space) and model help remove the confusion? Include those as meta data and train investigators on how to use to distinguish generated content from actual evidence.
There’s an option to speed up generation but it will make it less deterministic, like in it’s 98% the same image but a little different. Also it’s very hard to reproduce the same hard and software generation. That’s the first issue.
The second is: I had examples of images with generation data, that I could reproduce to look 99% like the original and then just updating a single word or part of the training data (different Lora version for example) , switched the person away or their appearance changed a completely. (Imagine a picture of a street and a car is suddenly not there, or it’s blue instead of red). It will make reproducibility not a reliable option. Backgrounds of images are even less reliable than the focus object.
If you want to be taken seriously about child abuse, have you tried not having thumbnails that look like a ten-year-old made them 😂
That’s mental outlaw not me. Famous for his style of thumbnails
He is just a humble chicken rancher…
Famous
You keep using zis word. I do not sink it means what you sink it means
Dude you’re on lemmy, relatively mental outlaw is the Samuel L. Jackson of privacy.
What do you people think this will lead to? Is it solvable or not? and if yes then how?
Most of this thread is defending csam, which loli definitely is. WTF. Disgusting community.
I think you’re confused. No one is defending CSAM. Lolicon isn’t CSAM. Also I don’t understand why we would spend effort protecting digital children instead of protecting real ones.
Nobody is protecting digital children and it’s almost always disingenuous when this argument is claimed to be made. The effort is to stop the normalization of the sexualization children. Lolicon is exclusively about romancing or sexualizing children. Deluded adults who think what happens in lolicon material is ok are potential risks to real children. Allowing such a risk to children for the pleasure of these adult is absurd.
So by that logic why didn’t all of us that grew up playing COD “normalize” walking around shooting everybod?, that stupid claim used to be made all the time. I’ve yet to me a serial killer that blamed video games.
- The amount of people warped by COD or Lolicon is not 100%, but it’s certainly not 0%
- It sounds like you haven’t actually played COD because the game is about WARFARE, not domestic terrorism. Maybe ask people who joined the US military how inspired they were by the game
You’re a complete moron you know that? Aside from having every COD the first handful of years they came out, I also served. But you knew that right genius?
Maybe ask people who joined the US military how inspired they were by the game
That’d be a first, and go figure, I just happen to know a LOT of other people in the military.
I also never made the claim ZERO people were ever effected, I said it never normalize any of it. Next time try reading with your eyes open and try not to inject your make believe facts based on zero.
Fair enough. Imo lolicon is disgusting. And Im not making an argument in bad faith, I just see how much general society fails at protecting children and would rather see any effort spent towards cracking down on lolicon to be used to help real children.
I understand what you’re saying, but the fighting against Lolicon doesn’t necessarily take away from the fight against real CSAM. The reality is serious, far-reaching, and, ultimately, human issues like the exploitation of children are complex and require effort on multiple fronts to be effective.
deleted by creator
Nobody has done that, you can’t redefine CSAM to mean what you want it to. Funny how people only label people as “disgusting” when they’re being driven by false emotion and not logical thinking
ITT: so many pedophiles
There very well could be, I’m sure there’s no shortage of them that will never be found out, and I’m sure that number is petrifying. BUT, that still doesn’t rationalize people trying to redefine words so that they can make things mean what they want to fit a context that isn’t there, simply to suit their needs. Just like free speech, you have to take the good with the bad.
Pedo’s are wired wrong, theres something literally wrong with them, nobody would chose to be that, thinking otherwise is no different than people thinking you can “re-educate” gay people into being straight. Simply not gonna happen. If some basement dwelling pedo gets off on some cartoon and that keeps them functioning normal in society, while no children in real life are harmed, good luck arguing against that. Only a person ignorant to reality tries to make the reverse argument that doing so so how condones pedophilia. NOBODY other than other pedo’s are ok with how they are.
