You know whats better? Having none of this shit

Better only means less worse in this case, I guess

It feeds and evolves a disorder which in turn increases risks of real life abuse.

But if AI generated content is to be considered illegal, so should all fictional content.

A problem that I see getting brought up is that generated AI images makes it harder to notice photos of actual victims, making it harder to locate and save them

Did we memory hole the whole ‘known CSAM in training data’ thing that happened a while back? When you’re vacuuming up the internet you’re going to wind up with the nasty stuff, too. Even if it’s not a pixel by pixel match of the photo it was trained on, there’s a non-zero chance that what it’s generating is based off actual CSAM. Which is really just laundering CSAM.

The arrest is only a positive. Allowing pedophiles to create AI CP is not a victimless crime. As others point out it muddies the water for CP of real children, but it also potentially would allow pedophiles easier ways to network in the open (if the images are legal they can easily be platformed and advertised), and networking between abusers absolutely emboldens them and results in more abuse.

As a society we should never allow the normalization of sexualizing children.

Is “better than” the same as totally cool and legal?

I have trouble with this because it’s like 90% grey area. Is it a pic of a real child but inpainted to be nude? Was it a real pic but the face was altered as well? Was it completely generated but from a model trained on CSAM? Is the perceived age of the subject near to adulthood? What if the styling makes it only near realistic (like very high quality CG)?

I agree with what the FBI did here mainly because there could be real pictures among the fake ones. However, I feel like the first successful prosecution of this kind of stuff will be a purely moral judgement of whether or not the material “feels” wrong, and that’s no way to handle criminal misdeeds.

Yeah, it’s very similar to the “is loli porn unethical” debate. No victim, it could supposedly help reduce actual CSAM consumption, etc… But it’s icky so many people still think it should be illegal.

There are two big differences between AI and loli though. The first is that AI would supposedly be trained with CSAM to be able to generate it. An artist can create loli porn without actually using CSAM references. The second difference is that AI is much much easier for the layman to create. It doesn’t take years of practice to be able to create passable porn. Anyone with a decent GPU can spin up a local instance, and be generating within a few hours.

In my mind, the former difference is much more impactful than the latter. AI becoming easier to access is likely inevitable, so combatting it now is likely only delaying the inevitable. But if that AI is trained on CSAM, it is inherently unethical to use.

Whether that makes the porn generated by it unethical by extension is still difficult to decide though, because if artists hate AI, then CSAM producers likely do too. Artists are worried AI will put them out of business, but then couldn’t the same be said about CSAM producers? If AI has the potential to run CSAM producers out of business, then it would be a net positive in the long term, even if the images being created in the short term are unethical.

Yes, but the perp showed the images to a minor.

Apparently he sent some to an actual minor.

The generated stuff is as illegal as the real stuff. thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lol… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

I think the point is that child attraction itself is a mental illness and people indulging it even without actual child contact need to be put into serious psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

It’s better to have neither.

It reminds me of the story of the young man who realized he had an attraction to underage children and didn’t want to act on it, yet there were no agencies or organizations to help him, and that it was only after crimes were committed that anyone could get help.

I see this fake cp as only a positive for those people. That it might make it difficult to find real offenders is a terrible reason against.

Not everything exists on the cloud (someone else’s computer)

You can run the SD model offline, so on what service would that User be flagged?

my main question is: how much csam was fed into the model for training so that it could recreate more

i think it’d be worth investigating the training data usued for the model

That’s not how any of this works

Because what prompts people enter on their own computer isn't in their responsibility? Should pencil makers flag people writing bad words?

Stable Diffusion has been distancing themselves from this. The model that allows for this was leaked from a different company.

That’s sickening to know there are bastards out there who will get away with it since they are only creating it.

You can get away with a lot of heinous crimes by simply not telling people and sharing the results.

Creating the pics is a crime by itself. thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lol…

Lemmy really needs to stop justifying CP. We can absolutely do more than “eDuCaTiOn”. AI is created by humans, the training data is gathered by humans, it needs regulation like any other industry.

It’s absolutely insane to me how laissez-fair some people are about AI, it’s like a cult.

Legally, a sufficiently detailed image depicting csam is csam, regardless of how it was produced. Sharing it is why he got caught, inevitably, but it’s still illegal even if he never brought a minor into it.

Making the CSAM is illegal by itself thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lol…

Title is pretty accurate.

Well yeah. Just because something makes you really uncomfortable doesn’t make it a crime. A crime has a victim.

Also, the vast majority of children are victimized because of the US’ culture of authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism. That’s why far and away children are victimized by either a relative or in a church. But y’all ain’t ready to have that conversation.

It’s not ok to do this. thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lol…

First of all, it’s absolutely crazy to link to a 6 month old thread just to complain that you go downvoted in it. You’re pretty clearly letting this site get under your skin if you’re still hanging onto these downvotes.

Second, none of your 6 responses in that thread are logical, rational responses. You basically just assert that things that you find offensive enough should be illegal, and then just type in all caps at everyone who explains to you that this isn’t good logic.

The only way we can consider child porn prohibition constitutional is to interpret it as a protection of victims. Since both the production and distribution of child porn hurt the children forced into it, we ban it outright, not because it is obscene, but because it does real damage. This fits the logic of many other forms of non-protected speech, such as the classic “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre” example, where those hurt in the inevitable panic are victims.

Expanding the definition of child porn to include fully fictitious depictions, such as lolicon or AI porn, betrays this logic because there are no actual victims. This prohibition is rooted entirely in the perceived obscenity of the material, which is completely unconstitutional. We should never ban something because it is offensive, we should only ban it when it does real harm to actual victims.

I would argue that rape and snuff film should be illegal for the same reason.

The reason people disagree with you so strongly isn’t because they think AI generated pedo content is “art” in the sense that we appreciate it and defend it. We just strongly oppose your insistence that we should enforce obscenity laws. This logic is the same logic used as a cudgel against many other issues, including LGBTQ rights, as it basically argues that sexually disagreeable ideas should be treated as a criminal issue.

I think we all agree that AI pedo content is gross, and the people who make it and consume it are sick. But nobody is with you on the idea that drawings and computer renderings should land anyone in prison.

How do you think they train models to generate CSAM?

Some of yall need to lookup what an LoRA is

My concern is why would it put them out of business? If we just look at legal porn there is already beyond huge amounts already created, and the market is still there for new content to be created constantly. AI porn hasn’t noticeably decreased the amount produced.

Really flooding the market with CSAM makes it easier to consume and may end up INCREASING the amount of people trying to get CSAM. That could end up encouraging more to be produced.

It’s also a victimless crime. Just like flooding the market with fake rhino horns and dropping the market price to a point that it isn’t worth it.

It's such an emotional topic that people lose all rationale.
I remember the Reddit arguments in the comment sections about pedos, already equalizing the term with actual child rapists, while others would argue to differentiate because the former didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be stigmatized for what's going on in their heads but rather offered help to cope with it. The replies are typically accusations of those people making excuses for actual sexual abusers.

I always had the standpoint that I do not really care about people's fictional content. Be it lolis, torture, gore, or whatever other weird shit. If people are busy & getting their kicks from fictional stuff then I see that as better than using actual real life material, or even getting some hands on experiences, which all would involve actual real victims.

And I think that should be generally the goal here, no? Be it pedos, sadists, sociopaths, whatever. In the end it should be not about them, but saving potential victims. But people rather throw around accusations and become all hysterical to paint themselves sitting on their moral high horse (ironically typically also calling for things like executions or castrations).

It would be illegal in the United States. Artistic depictions of CSAM are illegal under the PROTECT act 2003.

Most states will let grown men marry children as young as 14. There is a special carve out for Christian pedophiles.

partly because they are obvious fictions

That’s it actually, all sites that allow it like danbooru, gelbooru, pixiv, etc. Have a clause against photo realistic content and they will remove it.

It comes back to distribution for me. If they are generating the stuff for themselves, gross, but I don’t see how it can really be illegal. But if your distributing them, how do we know their not real? The amount of investigative resources that would need to be dumped into that, and the impact on those investigators mental health, I don’t know. I really don’t have an answer, I don’t know how they make it illegal, but it really feels like distribution should be.

Currently, we do not outlaw written depictions nor drawings of child sexual abuse

Cartoon CSAM is illegal in the United States

thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lol…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

Well thought-out and articulated opinion, thanks for sharing.

If even the most skilled hyper-realistic painters were out there painting depictions of CSAM, we’d probably still label it as free speech because we “know” it to be fiction.

When a computer rolls the dice against a model and imagines a novel composition of children’s images combined with what it knows about adult material, it does seem more difficult to label it as entirely fictional. That may be partly because the source material may have actually been real, even if the final composition is imagined. I don’t intend to suggest models trained on CSAM either, I’m thinking of models trained to know what both mature and immature body shapes look like, as well as adult content, and letting the algorithm figure out the rest.

Nevertheless, as you brought up, nobody is harmed in this scenario, even though many people in our culture and society find this behavior and content to be repulsive.

To a high degree, I think we can still label an individual who consumes this type of AI content to be a pedophile, and although being a pedophile is not in and of itself an illegal adjective to posses, it comes with societal consequences. Additionally, pedophilia is a DSM-5 psychiatric disorder, which could be a pathway to some sort of consequences for those who partake.

It feels incredibly gross to just say “generated CSAM is a-ok, grab your hog and go nuts”, but I can’t really say that it should be illegal if no child was harmed in the training of the model. The idea that it could be a gateway to real abuse comes to mind, but that’s a slippery slope that leads to “video games cause school shootings” type of logic.

I don’t know, it’s a very tough thing to untangle. I guess I’d just want to know if someone was doing that so I could stay far, far away from them.

Is every person who goes on there and types, “Loli” or “Anya from spy x family, realistic, NSFW” (that’s an underaged character) going to get a letter in the mail from the FBI?

I’ll throw that baby out with the bathwater to be honest.

The major concern to me, is that there isn’t really any guidance from the FBI on what you can and can’t do, which may lead to some big issues.

www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2024/PSA240329 justice.gov/…/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-child…

They’ve actually issued warnings and guidance, and the law itself is pretty concise regarding what’s allowed.

(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where-

(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

© such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

…

(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prel…

If you’re going to be doing grey area things you should do more than the five minutes of searching I did to find those honestly.

It was basically born out of a supreme Court case in the early 2000s regarding an earlier version of the law that went much further and banned anything that “appeared to be” or “was presented as” sexual content involving minors, regardless of context, and could have plausibly been used against young looking adult models, artistically significant paintings, or things like Romeo and Juliet, which are neither explicit nor vulgar but could be presented as involving child sexual activity. (Juliet’s 14 and it’s clearly labeled as a love story).
After the relevant provisions were struck down, a new law was passed that factored in the justices rationale and commentary about what would be acceptable and gave us our current system of “it has to have some redeeming value, or not involve actual children and plausibly not look like it involves actual children”.

The major concern to me, is that there isn’t really any guidance from the FBI on what you can and can’t do, which may lead to some big issues.

The Protect Act of 2003 means that any artistic depiction of CSAM is illegal. The guidance is pretty clear, FBI is gonna raid your house…eventually. We still haven’t properly funded the anti-CSAM departments.

Some places do lock up spray paint due to its use in graffiti, so that’s not without precedent.

I’d usually agree with you, but it seems he sent them to an actual minor for “reasons”.

Asked whether more funding will be provided for the anti-paint enforcement divisions: it’s such a big backlog, we’ll rather just wait for somebody to piss of a politician to focus our resources.

That’s a very important distinction. While the first part is, to put it lightly, bad, I don’t really care what people do on their own. Getting real people involved, and minor at that? Big no-no.

All LLM headlines are like this to fuel the ongoing hysteria about the tech. It's really annoying.

Cartoon CSAM is illegal in the United States. Pretty sure the judges will throw his images under the same ruling.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lol…

I’d be torn on the idea of AI generating CP, if it were only that. On one hand if it helps them calm the urges while no one is getting hurt, all the better. But on the other hand it might cause them not to seek help, but problem is already stigmatized severely enough that they are most likely not seeking help anyway.

But sending that stuff to a minor. Big problem.

Yeah that’s toothless. They decided there is no particular way to age a cartoon, they could be from another planet that simply seem younger but are in actuality older.

It’s bunk, let them draw or generate whatever they want, totally fictional events and people are fair game and quite honestly I’d Rather they stay active doing that then get active actually abusing children.

Outlaw shibari and I guarantee you’d have multiple serial killers btk-ing some unlucky souls.

Would Lisa Simpson be 8 years old, or 43 because the Simpsons started in 1989?

.

.

I thought cartoons/illustrations of that nature were only illegal in the UK (Coroners and Justices Act 2008) and Switzerland. TIL about the PROTECT Act.

In many ways they are. The image generated from a prompt isn’t unique, and is actually semi random. It’s not entirely in the users control. The person could argue “I described what I like but I wasn’t asking it for children, and I didn’t think they were fake images of children” and based purely on the image it could be difficult to argue that the image is not only “child-like” but actually depicts a child.

The prompt, however, very directly shows what the user was asking for in unambiguous terms, and the negative prompt removes any doubt that they thought they were getting depictions of adults.

Having an AI generate 13.000 images does not even take 24 hours (depending on hardware and settings ofc).

It would not need to be trained on CP. It would just need to know what human bodies can look like and what sex is.

AIs usually try not to allow certain content to be produced, but it seems people are always finding ways to work around those safeguards.

Well some llm have been caught wirh cp in their training data

Likely yes, and even commercial models have an issue with CSAM leaking into their datasets. The scummiest of all of them likelyget one offline model, then add their collection of CSAM to it.

Wait do you think all Hentai is CSAM?

And sending the images to a 15 year old crosses the line no matter how he got the images.

Umm … That AI generated hentai on the page of the same article, though … Do the editors have any self-awareness? Reminds me of the time an admin decided the best course of action to call out CSAM was to directly link to the source.

The image depicts mature women, not children.

Go to instance that moderate like you like it.

Lemmy as a whole does not have moderation. Moderators on Lemmy.today cannot moderate Lemmy.world or Lemmy ml, they can only remove problematic posts as they come and as they see fit or block entire instances which is rare.

If you want stricter content rules than any of the available federated instances then you’ll have to either:

1. Use a centralized platform like Reddit but they’re going to sell you out for data profits and you’ll still have to occasionally deal with shit like “The Donald.”

2. Start your own instance with a self hosted server and create your own code of conduct and hire moderators to enforce it.

You can go to an instance that follows your views closer and start blocking instances that post low quality content to you. Lemmy is a protocol, it’s not a single community. So the moderation and post quality is going to be determined by the instance you’re on and the community you’re with.

you are too optimistic about the internet