I’ll never look at an old man with grass-stained, white New Balances ever again.

.

Ah yes, the famous pornstars “little mermaid” and “aerith”

They’re videogame and movie characters, Einstein.

Are you still talking about me? Oh man… so sad.

Dude, I’ve got like… Five bucks. How much more do these cartoon woman want?

i believe that is what they said, that is a pretty good chance, but still good to be on the safe side i suppose.

Correct. This quickly approaches thought crime.

What about an AI gen of a violent rape and murder. Shouldn’t that also be illegal.

But we have movies that have protected that sort of thing for years; graphically. Do those the become illegal after the fact?

And we also have movies of children being victimized so do these likewise become illegal?

We already have studies that show watching violence does not make one violent and while some refuse to accept that, it is well established science.

There is no reason to believe the same isn’t true for watching sexual assault. There are been many many movies that contain such scenes.

But ultimately the issue will become that there is no way to prevent it. The hardware to generate this stuff is already in our pockets. It may not be efficient but it’s possible and efficiency will increase.

The prompts to generate this stuff are easily shared and there is no way to stop that without monitoring all communication and even then I’m sure work around would occur.

Prohibition requires society sacrifice freedoms and we have to decide what weee willing to sacrifice here because as we’ve seen with or prohibitions, once we unleash the law on one, it can be impossible to undo.

Am I reading this right? You’re for prosecuting people who have broken no laws?

No I’m for making it against the law to simulate pedophile shit as the net effect is fewer abused kids than if such images were to be legal. Notably you are free to fantasize about whatever you like its the actual creation and sharing of images that would be illegal. Far from being a minority report hellscape its literally the present way things already are many places.

Therapy is well and good and I think we need far more avenues available for people to get help (for all issues). That said, sexuality and attraction are complicated.

Let me start by saying I am not trying to state there is a 1:1 equivalence, this is just a comparison, but we have long abandoned conversion therapy for homosexuals, because we’ve found these preferences are core to them and not easily overwritten. The same is true for me as a straight person, I don’t think therapy would help me find men attractive. I have to imagine the same is true for pedophiles.

The question is, if AI can produce pornography that can satisfy the urges of someone with pedophilia without harming any minors, is that a net positive? Remember the attraction is not the crime, it’s the actions that harm others that are. Therapy should always be on the table.

This is a tricky subject because we don’t want to become thought police, so all our laws are built in that manner. However there are big exceptions for sexual crimes due to the gravity of their impact on society. It’s very hard to “stand up” for pedophilia because if acted upon it has monstrous effects, but AI is making us open this can of worms that I don’t belive we ever really thought through besides criminalizing and demonizing (which could be argued was the correct approach with the technology at the time).

If the pictures are not, forced therapy is probably the best option.

This is true, but it really depends how “therapy” is defined. And forced therapy could mean anything from things like the old conversion therapy approach for gay people.

You might argue that these days we wouldn’t do anything so barbaric, but considering that the nature of a pedophile’s is very unsavory, and the fact that it will never be acceptable, unlike homosexuality, people would be far more willing to abuse or exploit said “therapy”

I see. I’ve looked up the details. Obscenity - whatever that means - is not protected by the first amendment. So where the material is obscene, it is still illegal.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit…

I mean, there’s another side to this.

Assume you have exacting control of training data. You give it consensual sexual play, including rough play, bdsm play, and cnc play. We are 100% certain the content is consensual in this hypothetical.

Is the output a grey area, even if it seems like real rape?

Now another hypothetical. A person closes their eyes and imagines raping someone. “Real” rape. Is that a grey area?

Let’s build on that. Let’s say this person is a talented artist, and they draw out their imagined rape scene, which we are 100% certain is a non-consensual scene imagined by the artist. Is this a grey area?

We can build on that further. What if they take the time to animate this scene? Is that a grey area?

When does the above cross into a problem? Is it the AI making something that seems like rape but is built on consensual content? The thought of a person imagining a real rape? The putting of that thought onto a still image? The animating?

Or is it none of them?

I see the issue with how much of a crime is enough for it to be okay, and the gray area. I can’t make that call either, but I kinda disagree with the black and white conclusion. I don’t need something to be perfectly ethical, few things are. I do however want to act in a ethical manner, and strive to be better.

Where do you draw the line? It sounds like you mean no AI can be used in any cases, unless all the material has been carefully vetted?

I highly doubt there isn’t illegal content in most AI models of any size by big tech.

I am not sure where I draw the line, but I do want to use AI services, but not for porn though.

It’s not just AI that can create content like that though. 3d artists have been making victimless rape slop of your vidya waifu for well over a decade now.

Watching videos of rape doesn’t create a new victim. But we consider it additional abuse of an existing victim.

is this a legal thing? I’m not familiar with the laws surrounding sexual abuse, on account of the fact that i don’t frequently sexually abuse people, but if this is an established legal precedent that’s definitely a good argument to use.

However, on a mechanical level. A recounting of an instance isn’t necessarily a 1:1 retelling of that instance. A video of rape for example, isn’t abuse anymore so than the act of rape within it, and of course the nonconsensual recording and sharing of it (because it’s rape) distribution of that could necessarily be considered a crime of it’s own, same with possession, however interacting with the video i’m not sure is necessarily abuse in it’s own right, based on semantics. The video most certainly contains abuse, the watcher of the video may or may not like that, i’m not sure whether or that should influence that, because that’s an external value. Something like “X person thought about raping Y person, and got off to it” would also be abuse under the same pretense at a certain point. There is certainly some interesting nuance here.

If i watch someone murder someone else, at what point do i become an accomplice to murder, rather than an additional victim in the chain. That’s the sort of litmus test this is going to require.

That’s the gray area. AI is trained on images of abuse (we know it’s in there somewhere).

to be clear, this would be a statistically minimal amount of abuse, the vast majority of adult content is going to be legally produced and sanctioned, made public by the creators of those videos for the purposes of generating revenue. I guess the real question here, is what percent of X is still considered to be “original” enough to count as the same thing.

Like we’re talking probably less than 1% of all public porn, but a significant margin, is non consensual (we will use this as the base) and the AI is trained on this set, to produce a minimally alike, or entirely distinct image from the feature set provided. So you could theoretically create a formula to determine how far removed you are from the original content in 1% of cases. I would imagine this is going to be a lot closer to 0 than it is to any significant number, unless you start including external factors, like intentionally deepfaking someone into it for example. That would be my primary concern.

That’s the gray area. AI is trained on images of abuse (we know it’s in there somewhere). So at what point can we say the modified images are okay because the abused person has been removed enough from the data?

another important concept here is human behavior as it’s conceptually similar in concept to the AI in question, there are clear strict laws regarding most of these things in real life, but we aren’t talking about real life. What if i had someone in my family, who got raped at some point in their life, and this has happened to several other members of my family, or friends of mine, and i decide to write a book, loosely based on the experiences of these individuals (this isn’t necessarily going to be based on those instances for example, however it will most certainly be influenced by them)

There’s a hugely complex hugely messy set of questions, and answers that need to be given about this. A lot of people are operating on a set of principles much too simple to be able to make any conclusive judgement about this sort of thing. Which is why this kind of discussion is ultimately important.

With this logic, any output of any pic gen AI is abuse… I mean, we can 100% be sure that there are CP in training data (it would be a very bug surprise if not) and all output is result of all training data as far as I understand the statistical behaviour of photo gen AI.

Again you’re talking about distribution

No, the problem is a lack of consent of the person being used.

And now, being used to generate depictions of rape and CSAM.

I mean, a lot of TV has murders in it. There is a huge market for showing realistic murder.

But I get the feeling your saying that there isn’t a huge market for showing real people dying realistically without their permission. But that’s more a technicality. The question is, is the content or the production of the content illegal. If it’s not a real person, who is the victim of the crime.

Don’t pay any attention to that kinda stupid comment. Anyone posting that kind of misinformation about AI is either trolling or incapable of understanding how generative AI works

Thank you 😊

If only there was a p2p way to send people funds without anyone knowing the sender or the recipient…

We already live in a post scarcity world, we produce more than enough needs and goods for every person alive, we just throw away more than half of all food and clothing produced instead of giving it to the hungry because it’s isn’t profitable.

*utmost

You want me to find a citation explaining why women selling their bodies is bad?

1.4B should be surprisingly doable, especially once quantization/optimized kernels are figured out.

HunyuanVideo can already run on a 12GB desktop 3060.

Like 3080 top tier or 5090 ti top tier?