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.
Having a firm conviction about realizing fundamental rights & liberties to their logical limits isn't suspicious. Anything less is cowardice. The decision was sound.
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!!!???
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.
FINALLY my Vote for Donald Trump and Child Sex Generator Elon Musk is PAYING OFF!
-LITERALLY Every single Republican voter!
Manga though? Straight to jail.
So here’s going to be an unpopular opinion. First let me preface this with I think hurting children is one of the worst things you can do. But is drawing a naked child illegal? Is a video game with a naked child 3d model illegal? Where is the line? Is it weird? Hell fucking yes. Is it wrong? I also believe yes. But it’s not an actual child. The real question should be, how did the AI know how to create those images? Because it was trained on actual child porn. And how this AI was trained should really be the crime. Because it ingested shit-tons of actual CSAM.
AI has not necessary been trained on CSAM. It may be able to generate it because it has both the concept of nakedness and the concept of children. Just like AI can generate flying dogs with wings and everything doesn't mean it's been trained on pictures of flying dogs.
This nazi regime installed set of scat puppets would
So you can generate it but not be in possession of it?
I think it depends how rich you are.
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.
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.
Someone needs to search that Judge's hard drive...
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.
I don't understand this at all. I thought it was illegal to have possession of child pornography. In fact isn't that what CBP, said they were looking for on the guy's phone when they put in the code and it wiped itself? So it's legal to generate it, but not possess it? WTF? Did I hear wrong?
All answered by *drum roll* reading the article.
Read the article? Are you nuts?
Madness
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.
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.
Then so Is AI porn of that judge.
Nope, you didn't read the article.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
