102
this is going to make all those sites hosting or allow CP material , especially those sites that discuss/inneundos about CSA.
It's nearly an impossible question to answer in criminal scenario. An actual photo of an exposed minor is clearly harm to that individual. Putting their face on a fake but believable body is nearly as bad. Then you get to the sort of 5-10% gap where it could be them or inspired by them, but few would believe it's an actual photograph. It all goes downhill from there. Cartoonify someone, give them bigger boobs and put them in a bikini on Mars and we start to wonder how this got to trial. It would be a huge gift to lawyers but I think most of this needs to play out in civil courts.
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.
That’s the thing… it was derived from real CP.
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
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
Someone needs to search that Judge's hard drive...
If you read the article, this is a very specific legal question. And honestly, it's too gross to contemplate, and having a strong opinion about this on the internet is rightly suspicious.
The good news is the criminal in this case didn't just posess CSAM, and no matter how this shakes out, they going to jail.
I heard there is a theory from therapists that being able to create that content can help quell urges, and so we should allow it if it protects real kids, vile as it is. However others argue it could cause it cause more to cause harm.
Either way, the decision is well above my ability to decide, and while I would hope actual professionals would have a say, unfortunately it's going to be a political thing. Pandoras box is wide open though.
The problem there, which we won't ever solve because it's far too personal for most people, is that pedophilia is a mental disorder but we put it on the same level as child sexual abuse. So nobody would dare admit to it and nobody seeks actual treatment for it.
I don’t know if I buy the “could make them cause more harm” argument, specifically. IIRC there have been studies that show access to (adult) porn actually lowers the rate of sexual assault.
Yeah no idea personally, definitely something I'm not qualified to answer.
Ah, yeah to be clear I meant that in general and not specifically towards you.
Wait. Doesn't the PROTECT Act deal with this?
Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Wouldn't this fall under that? I'm confused.
Precisely that was found unconstitutional.
wtf.
Don't you mean WTF!!!???
No, they mean WTAF?!?!
So you can generate it but not be in possession of it?
Apparently you can make it and own it if it's all fake images. Something to do with the legal questions involved, if they illegalized this, then other non perverse things could be illegalized under that precedent. Unless congress steps up, (ha ha,) the judge might actually be in the right here I hate to say it.
Child abuse is always the trojan horse to take away freedoms it seems in the west.
I think it depends how rich you are.
The ruling was on possession
You can't have training data for it I guess? But then the model maker would have to break the law to even make it of course so you can't even use that model without some laws being broken down the line. Then again virtually all models should be illegal because of that. I feel like there is a lot of legislation to be done here because the whole industry is rotten to the core.
If by a whole lot of legislation that needs done you mean a whole lot of undiagnosed cases of lead deficiency that need urgent treatment, I would tend to agree with you. Just in general, everywhere.
The idea that CSAM is used in training data is largely discredited. An AI doesn't need to have actual images of nude children to generate CSAM; it knows what humans look like naked, and it knows what children look like - it fills in the gaps from there.
There was an article the other day saying that Grok used CSAM as training data.
Looks like it's seriously reaching. I hope that poor women isn't being used by some unscrupulous ideologues. She is heading for trying times regardless.
The TL;DR is that there is a voluntary system that tracks court cases and will alert CSAM victims when it suspects images of them (either known images, or new ones) are the topic of criminal investigations. A Jane Doe was repeatedly raped in the early 2000’s to produce copious amounts of CSAM, which was broadly shared among pedophile groups. Her images were apparently very popular and prolific. Doe was alerted that Grok was producing new explicit images of her as a child. The images in question are novel (generated by AI, and not matching any known existing images) but are undoubtedly of Doe as a child. Meaning it was using Doe’s images as part of the training data for the images it generates.
Essentially, if Grok was trained on CSAM, Doe’s popular images were almost certainly included. And now Grok is producing new images of her. It would be like asking Grok to make an image of a popular egirl, and getting an image of what is undoubtedly Belle Delphine. And then X goes “no no no, we didn’t use any images of Belle Delphine in our training data. We promise!”
It's important to note that to produce an AI-generated image of somebody, they do not need to exist in the training data beforehand. You can use an image as a prompt, and an AI can create new works based on that prompt, without ever referencing the person from training materials.
Most of these CSAM files are not readily available on the clearnet, and I don't think even Elon is stupid enough to let an AI scraper run free on Tor. One would have to go significantly out of their way to locate clearnet sources of CSAM to include into the training data.
Some would say it's a distinction without difference, but I think it's important to understand how these AI images are actually created, if you want to adequately legislate them.
Bullshit. They fed all that shit through in east african countries and the devil knows where else. Paying workers shit to id picture of csam and other abusive shit all day. You do not know what you are talking about, at best.
The idea that CSAM is used in training data is largely discredited.
that is so wrong, don't spread that bullshit
they find it in models all the time!
This nazi regime installed set of scat puppets would
Madness
It's nice to see that the old USA is still there. But the social media reactions make me worry all the more for the future.
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
102 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
87680 readers
3836 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