If you really must, you can simply have the AI auto delete nsfw images, several already do this. Now to argue you can’t simply never generate or give out nsfw images, you can also gate nsfw content generation behind any number of hinderences that are highly effective against anonymous use, or underage use.

Reputation matters less than harassment. If these people were describing her body publicly it would be a similar attack.

A friend in high school made nude drawings of another mutual friend. It was weird he showed me but he was generally an artsy guy and I knew he was REALLY into this girl and it was kind of in the context of showing he his art work. I reconnected with the girl years later and talked about this and while she said it was weird she didn’t really think much of it. Rather, the creepy part to her was that he showed people.

I don’t think we can stop horny teens from making horny content about their classmates, heck, I know multiple girls who wrote erotic stories featuring classmates. The sharing (and realism) is what turns the creepy but kind of understandable teenage behavior into something we need to deal with

AI generated csam is still csam.

Idk, with real people the determination on if someone is underage is based on their age and not their physical appearance. There are people who look unnaturally young that could legally do porn, and underage people who look much older but aren’t allowed. It’s not about their appearance, but how old they are.

With drawn or AI-generated CSAM, how would you draw that line of what’s fine and what’s a major crime with lifelong repercussions? There’s not an actual age to use, the images aren’t real, so how do you determine the legal age? Do you do a physical developmental point scale and pick a value that’s developed enough? Do you have a committee where they just say “yeah, looks kinda young to me” and convict someone for child pornography?

To be clear I’m not trying to defend these people, but it seems like trying to determine what counts legal/non-legal for fake images seems like a legal nightmare. I’m sure there are cases where this would be more clear cut (if they ai generate with a specific age, trying to do deep fakes of a specific person, etc), but a lot of it seems really murky when you try to imagine how to actually prosecute over it.

AI generated csam is still csam.

This is a very dumb take that must never get any support. The extent of things politicians and elites get to do with such laws is batshit insanity.

The current method is auto deleting nsfw images. Doesn’t matter how you got there, it detects nsfw it dumps it, you never get an image. Besides that gating nsfw content generation behind a pay wall or ID wall. It would stop a lot of teenagers. Not all, but it would put a dent in it. There are also AI models that will allow some nsfw if it’s clearly in an artistic style, like a watercolor painting, but will kick nsfw realism or photography, rendered images, that sort of thing. These are usually both in the prompt mode, paint in/out, and image reference mode, generation of likely nsfw images, and after generating a nsfw check before delivering the image. AI services are antisipating full on legal consequences for allowing any nsfw or any realistic, photographic, cgi, image of a living person without their consent, it’s easy to see that’s what they are prepared for.

While I think removing the stigma associated with having deepfakes made of you is important, I don't think that desensitization through exposure is the way to go about it. That will cause a lot of damage leading up to the point you're trying to reach.

This sounds like a cool idea because it is a novel approach, and it appeals to my general heuristic of the inevitability of technology and freedom. However, I don’t think it’s actually a good idea. People are entitled privacy, on this I hope we agree – and I believe this is because of something more fundamental: people are entitled dignity. If you think we’ll reach a point in this lifetime where it will be too commonplace to be a threat to someone’s dignity, I just don’t agree.

Not saying the solution is to ban the technology though.

It’s also worth noting that too many people put out way too much imagery of themselves online. People have got to start expecting that anything you put out in the public domain becomes public domain.

I second this motion. People also need to stop posting images of themselves all over the web. Especially their own kids. Parents plastering their kids images all over social media should not be condoned.

And on a related note we need much better sex-education in this country and a much healthier relationship with nudity.

.

Perhaps at least a small portion of the blame for what these girls are going through should be laid upon the society which obstinately teaches that a woman’s worth as a person is so inextricably tied to her willingness and ability to maintain the privacy of her areolas and vulva that the mere appearance of having failed in the endeavour is treated as a valid reason to disregard her humanity.

All 3 of them are changing schools, 2 are failing their years. Because of something someone else did to them. And you claim it’s not that bad? The fuck is wrong with you?

and by the time they’re 18 and moving on to college, or whatever they’re probably busy not fucking worrying about whatever happened in high school, because at the end of the day you have two options here:

be a miserable fuck. try to be the least miserable fuck you can, and do something productive.

Generally people pick the second option.

And besides, at the end of the day, it’s literally not real, none of this exists. It’s better than having your nudes leaked. Should we execute children who spread nudes of other children now? That’s a far WORSE crime to be committing, because now that shit is just out there, and it’s almost definitely on the internet, AND IT’S REAL.

Seems to me like you’re unintentionally nullifying the consequences of actual real CSAM material here.

Is my comment a little silly and excessive? Yes, that was my point. It’s satire.

I looked it up before posting. It’s illegal in 48 states, including California where most of these companies are headquartered, and every state where major cloud data centers are located. This makes it effectively illegal by state laws, which is the worst kind of illegal in the United States when operating a service at a national level because every state will have slightly different laws. No company is going to establish a system that allows users in the two remaining states to exchange revenge porn with each other except maybe a website established solely for that purpose. Certainly Snapchat would not.

I’ve noticed recently there are many reactionary laws to make illegal specific things that are already illegal or should already be illegal because of a more general law. We’d be much better off with a federal standardization of revenge porn laws than a federal law that specifically outlaws essentially the same thing but only when a specific technology is involved.

It’s not as easy as they want you to believe it is. I’m pretty sure most of the “promotional material” has been photoshopped or cherry picked at best

absolutely, all of the material out there for marketing is digitally manipulated by a human to some degree. And if it isn’t then honestly, i don’t know what you’re using AI image generation for lmao.

I don’t think that has been tested in court.

It has and it continues to be.

• fbi.gov/…/charlotte-child-sexual-abuse-material-c…
• www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2024/PSA240329
• fd.org/…/doj-charges-man-producing-and-possessing…

And even if it hadn’t, that’s no excuse not to start.

It would be a reasonable legal argument to say that the image isn’t a photo of anyone. It doesn’t depict reality, so it can’t depict anyone.

It depicts a real child and was distributed intentionally because of who it depicts. Find me then legal definition of pornography that demands that pornography be a “depiction of reality”. Where do you draw the line with such a qualifier?

I think at best you can argue it’s a form of photo manipulation, and the intent is to create a false impression about someone.

It is by definition “photo manipulation”, but the intent is to sexually exploit a child against her will. If you want to argue that this counts as a legal form of free speech (as libel is, FYI), you can fuck right on off with that.

A form of image based libel, but I don’t think that’s currently a legal concept.

Maybe actually know something about the law before you do all this “thinking”.

It’s also a concept where you would have to protect works of fiction otherwise you’ve just made the visual effects industry illegal if you’re not careful.

Oh no, not the sLiPpErY sLoPe!!!

We do not allow animals to be abused, but we allow images of animal abuse in films as long as they are faked.

Little girls are the same as animals, excellent take. /s

Children are often in horror films, and creating the images we see is very strictly managed so that the child actor is not exposed to anything that could distress them.

What kind of horror films are you watching that has naked children in sexual situations?

What’s the line here?

Don’t sexually exploit children.

Parental consent?

What the living fuck? Parental consent to make porn of their kids? This is insane.

I say all of this, not because I want to defend anyone, but because I think we’re about to set some really bad legal precidents if we’re not careful.

The bad legal precedent of banning the creation and distribution of child pornography depicting identifiable minors?

Personally, I don’t think the concept of any image, or any other piece of data, being illegal holds water.

Somebody check this guy’s hard drive…

I’ve only read do androids dream of electric sheep by him, what other book(s) should I check out by him?

They aren’t photos. They’re photorealistic drawings done by computer algorithms. This might seem like a tiny quibble to many, but as far as I can tell it is the crux of the entire issue.

most phone cameras alter the original image with AI shit now, it’s really common, they apply all kinds of weird correction to make it look better. Plus if it’s social media there’s probably a filter somewhere in there. At what point does this become the ship of thesseus?

my point here, is that if we’re arguing that AI images are semantically, not photos, than most photos on the internet including people would also arguably, not be photos to some degree.

Whether or not you consider them photos, DOJ considers them child porn and you will still go to jail.

.

Reporting and getting my comment removed for feeling the hypothetical threat of becoming a CSAM planting victim? Wow, I think I struck the chord with you. It makes sense, people like you never think through things before suggesting them. Such people should never get the tiniest sliver of power.

.

Is it material that may encourage people to sexually abuse a child?

I’m not sure where you’re going with that? I would argue that yes, it is. As it’s sexual material of a child, with that child’s face on it, explicitly made for the purpose of defaming her. So I would say it sexually abused a child.

But you could also be taking the stance of “AI trains on adult porn, and is mearly recreating child porn. No child was actually harmed during the process.” Which as I’ve said above, I disagree with, especially in this particular circumstance.

Apologies if it’s just my reading comprehension being shit

Is that the definition of CSAM?

it would be material of and or containing child sexual abuse in it.

I think it’s best to not defend kiddie porn, unless you have a republican senator in your pocket.

There are many pedo/loli Lemmy instances that are banned. You may like those, I do not. You might have that problem you are describing in such detail.

I see, it turned out to be useful to detect reactionary baiters. People like you are useful to the state, not to the kids you are pretending to protect.

Yes. It’s very tiring having to constantly fight this battle. Unfortunately that’s what they want cause if enough of us are too tired to care then eventually it slips through and we never get back what we lost.

Lol, good catch.

and that’s what I loathe about the idiots who are for this stuff. Yes, I want to curb this stuff - but for fuck’s sake there are ways to do it that aren’t “Give big government every scrap of data on you”.

There are ways to prove I’m over 18 without needing to register my ID with a porn company, or to regulate CSAM while not having to read private messages. Fuck, but we have the combination of circle of a venn diagram of idiot and control freak in congress, and they’ll happily remove all of our rights over some fear of the boogeyman

I don’t see a problem with that, I think that this information should be public, both prompt and result, because:

• a. The “AIs” companies already know that, why shouldn’t anyone else?
• b. They use public information to train their models, thus their results should also be public.
• c. This would be the ultimate way to know that something was “AI” generated.

This is a very different subject from giving acess for your DMs. The only ones who benefit from this information not being publicly available are those who use “AI” for malicious purposes, while everyone benefits from privacy of correspondence.

I let them know, they just took care of it 👍