174
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
174 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
88854 readers
5127 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Controversial opinion: If there is no real child whose likeness is used to produce the image, then there is no real victim. The art that is created is of the same quality as a drawing from imagination.
The other problem with illegalizing content on the basis of whether it's CSAM is the eternal question of whether an unreal likeness can be said to even have an age. How would you be able to prove with certainty that an AI-generated likeness was below the age of consent? You would think it would be obvious, but there is a huge gray area here. If the protection weren't fairly strong, I 100% guarantee that conservative Bible-thumpers would take advantage of the opportunity to ban all ai pornographic content, and then move on to real porn after that.
In addition, Banning AI material we might be able to interpret as CSAM does nothing to protect real children. There is no empirical proof that any kind of porn has a real, independent effect on people's sexual behavior.
Edit with addendum: In addition, civil rights are a matter of principle. It doesn't matter whether the presence of AI generated material makes the job of policing more difficult. The Bill of Rights was created to try to make sure that we don't become slaves. Just because something is highly offensive to my own tastes doesn't mean that the civil rights of the person who offends me disappear.
What do you think it was trained on to be able to create child porn? Yes, children were harmed and will continue to be harmed to “improve the model”
And use of the model drives demand for it, just like purchasing real CSAM. Even if the subject is now 50 years old, it incentivizes abusers to make new material from people that are currently underage.
The model knows what kids looks like and it knows what porn looks like. It is now more complex than the thought experiment, “the Chinese Room” because it can interpolate between two things it knows rather than basic request and response.
Were they also trained on the vast quantity of media of gymnasts made out of pasta for them to be able to create videos of that?
One of the main points of GenAI is the ability to smush multiple concepts together. There are plenty of training data of children that are in swimwear, or just literally naked that has nothing to do with CP, and there's boatloads naked adults and of course, porn, it can successfully combine them together even if there was no actual CP in there whatsoever.
And given the internet's proclivity toward legal "teen/jailbait" porn where the models are of age but focus heavily on child-like features/poses/clothing/etc, there's literally millions of high-resolution photos that an inference machine could easily stitch together a CSAM image using nothing but legal source images.
That’s the thing… it was derived from real CP.
What? Even if you're right that CSAM was included in training data (and that's highly debated), it would absolutely have been inadvertent and due to the Internet dragnet style of training. I don't know where you get the idea that AI companies would ask for more CSAM and drive up demand to "improve" their model.
As it has been said there was clearly some way it was trained. But for the moment let’s set that argument aside because it has been argued. (Children were hurt in its creation)
What do you think will happen as more creeps do it and use it. They will develop a taste for it and will eventually need the real thing. It will end with kids being hurt.
You can think whatever you want about what creeps may or may not do hypothetically, until you've got actual evidence those thoughts are worthless
So it is worthy to risk children being raped to feed the paraphilia of few people. Okay, but not okay.
There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that viewing any kind of porn leads to any behavior other than possibly viewing more porn. People who view furry porn don't suddenly decide they want to fuck animals, people who view rape fantasy material don't magically become enthusiastic rapists. People who want to molest children don't want it because they saw porn about it, they create CSAM as a result of their pre-existing pedophilic urges. Horse, then cart.
from the article:
Completely irrelevant to the comment you're responding to
I said risk, not that it definitely would happen. Caution, do you know about that? Or reading comprehension.
It's the same as when a chemical isn't proven safe and businesses are not allowed to add it to your food. It may be completely safe, but just in case.
If the benefit of using something outweighs the risk it would be reasonable to allow it, but we are talking about something with no proven benefit other than letting pedos enjoy themselves.
Not to talk about the re-victimization of CSAM survivors because there are cases of victims appearing in AI generated material because of the training using the original rape media. But I guess you don't care and would say they just look alike or some excuse.
There's no evidence of any risk at all, you are full of shit
Well, since it seems you are a low level troll I'm going to stop feeding you. I'll go on with my life while you feed on someone else.
You're telling on yourself here. They disagree with you. Plenty do. Your argument is speculative, slippery slope shit. Deal with it or don't.
You'll go on making shit up and lazily attempting to discredit anyone who calls you out on it because there are no consequences and you don't give a shit what's true as long as it makes you feel better
Evidence? You mean other than the extensive research, clinical tests, personal stories and confessions of offenders?
Anything's possible when you make shit up. You don't have research to support the claim that viewing any sort of pornographic material leads to behaviors depicted in that material, personal stories and confessions are not even close to the same thing as research and the fact that you bothered listing them together tells me that you're a fucking moron
Oh wow. You seem to be awfully enraged about this. You must have some personal investment in people being allowed to view specific types of "pornographic material". Well, don't let something like facts or common sense get in the way of your crusade.
Most reasonable people would get angry about someone lying about shit and then telling them they're wrong for calling them out and backhandedly accusing them of being pedophiles for disagreeing, and that is exactly what happens every time this topic comes up. I do have a vested interest in keeping the US from setting up a legal justification/precedent/system for incarcerating and killing trans people, of which I am one, and conservatives have been pushing the narrative that trans people are converting/targeting kids specifically for this reason. Any legal framework targeting pedophiles for anything other than actual crimes against children will be hijacked by conservatives and used against me and people I care about for the crime of being queer.
Repeated exposure and normalization are basic psychology that would be introduced in even the most rudimentary Intro to Psychiatry text book. They are basic tools used by therapists, advertisers, politicians, ect, ect to do everything from good to bad like convince you that spiders aren't horrifying, black people = white people, being gay is ok, ADHD doesn't mean you're defective, that you just should buy certain items because they match the lifestyle you think you deserve, and more recently that being a racist pedo rapist is acceptable as President.
You can claim that you are fighting for gay rights by tossing all the children to the pedos, but that is bullshit. If you are actually gay, then you are purposely equating homosexuality with pedophilia. The only way your argument wouldn't automatically make you one of the dumbest people on the planet is if you were purposely throwing on the "gay" mantle to reinforce the association of "gay" with "pedo" (like some political huckster), or if you were a pedo trying to deflect people from calling you out as the pedo that obviously are.
You're a complete fucking moron and dead wrong about absolutely everything, your "think of the children" bullshit will inevitably be co-opted by conservatives to target queers, history repeating itself because you're too fucking stupid to learn from it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_grooming_conspiracy_theory
Anything's possible when you make shit up
Tell it to the wiki article halfwit
Cool story
Yeah it's real cool how the nazis justified systematically persecuting queer people by accusing us categorically of being pedophiles, super cool how the US is doing the same thing now
I think I understand why you're fighting so hard here in the comments
So you're gonna pretend conservatives aren't loudly equating the mere existence of trans people with threats to the children? Unfortunately some of us don't have the luxury of ignoring reality because it actually affects us
My dude anything is possible when you gatekeep information. You're defending making child sexual abuse material (SCAM).
This is what the entire case was sort of about, and also explicitly not about. Does it harm children and the answer was the first amendment. That's not really an answer. Honestly this isn't a problem for the courts to figure out it's a legislative problem and good luck with that.
My personal opinion, no one should be able to create any sexualized content of children regardless of whether or not it's AI generated, authentic CSAM, hand drawn art, or anything else. Children should not be sexualized, I can't believe this is up for debate.
I'm not defending anything, I'm attacking a baseless claim about pornography making people do things, learn to read dumbass. Your personal opinion is as worthless as the person I was initially responding to.
Driving drunk is known to be dangerous. People who indulge in that behavior eventually hurt others. We don't wait for a drunk driver to crash into someone before we arrest them. We arrest them the minute they turn on their car while drunk.
Someone who indulges in sexualizing children will eventually hurt a child and we should not need to wait for it to happen before we arrest them.
Driving drunk is what causes the wreck and the harm directly, viewing pornography has no possible direct result, your comparison is dumb as shit
Arguing for the legal production of CSAM is fucked up, even if it's by an AI.
Also the article specifically states:
You're wrong. We absolutely can draw the line here. And yes, it does harm children. allowing people to create, possess, and distribute CSAM, even if it's AI-generated, will influence peoples willingness to act on their urges in real life, with real children. It's not a stretch to consider that linkage. What you're arguing for is shameful and disgusting.
Some people say it cold help preventing acting on those urges, unfortunately there's no definitive answer especially because it's not an easy-to-test topic.
I'd argue that acting on those urges in any way would just encourage further action on those urges. There's a reason alcoholics don't drink zero-alcohol beers.
Who the fuck told you alcoholics don't ever drink non-alcoholic beer? And more importantly why did you believe them?
source: am alcoholic
Sample size of one