Manga though? Straight to jail.
What
UK, Australia, and other countries made possession of fictional pornography involving minors illegal. Manga, but more specifically doujins featuring loli characters are affected.
Within the context of this post I’m pointing out how art made by humans is restricted, but if a big company generates the same shit they’re protected.
Odd because the U.S. doesn’t have this. Idk the original comment implied it did.
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.
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?
Home possession only, ruling doesn’t apply to the creation or distribution.
All answered by *drum roll* reading the article.
Read the article? Are you nuts?
FINALLY my Vote for Donald Trump and Child Sex Generator Elon Musk is PAYING OFF!
-LITERALLY Every single Republican voter!
Then so Is AI porn of that judge.
Nope, you didn’t read the article.
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.
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.
Having a firm conviction about realizing fundamental rights & liberties to their logical limits isn’t suspicious. Anything less is cowardice. The decision was sound.
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.
This isn’t someone drawing CP though. It’s AI-generated CP, which means the model had to be actually trained on CP. You might argue that there are already models trained on CP, and the chicken is already in the nugget, but legalising it creates financial incentive to train on CP because then you can sell your model to paedophiles.
That’s not how AI works. The people claiming that AI models have to be trained on CP to make CP have a fundamental misunderstanding of how image generation models work.
If I ask an AI model to make an image of a sexy air fryer fucking a sexy, anthropomorphic, ear of corn, it will produce said image. I promise it was not trained on sexy images of air fryers fucking sexy anthropomorphic ears of corn.
That’s what makes AI so dangerous and difficult to regulate. We are not ready for this technology to be in the hands of everyone.
You’re wrong. Literally from the article
AI-generated CSAM may also present other challenges not raised by the government in this appeal. For example, researchers have found that “a major dataset used for training image-generating AI contained hundreds of CSAM images.” Thus, unlike the virtual CSAM at issue in Free Speech Coalition, the market for AI-generated virtual CSAM images may impact the demand for actual CSAM on which the AI models can train.
They’re not wrong about the ruling incentivising CP though. I’m sure we’ll see shitloads of sites outright advertising it now
That doesn’t mean it has to be. It was, but that is a distinction. AI knows what children look like and AI knows what porn looks like. It is gross but it doesn’t mean there has to be a victim. There are, I’m sure, a ton of (pirated) medical journals and text books fed into many of them.
Correct, and another reason why it’s complex. If it was trained on it that’s bad, but if the user didn’t do the training does that mean what they are doing is okay if it helps them? Or is it bad because of the source? It’s a whole can of worms that we won’t be able to come to a concensus here, too many grey areas.
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.
Man the
devsfounders really thought of everything.
Someone needs to search that Judge’s hard drive…
this is going to make all those sites hosting or allow CP material , especially those sites that discuss/inneundos about CSA.
wtf.
Don’t you mean WTF!!!???
No, they mean WTAF?!?!
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.
What were the 4 horsmen of suppression of online speach? Child Safety, Trrsm, Hate, and Porn? These are the pretexts for everything else. Maybe copyright is supposed to be in there too. Five horsemen then.
I think a law saying no AI generated CSAM, whether or not the child depicted is real, isn’t an overreach into our fucking freedoms.
The same reasoning under our current criminal codes would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden.
Same reason they overturned community moral standard laws a few decades back. Used against the worst cases they could find, but broad enough for them to target everything, like regular pornography. (30 year felony in the precedent setting case, shitholy state GA or something.)
would open up anything and everything the authorities dislike to being forbidden.
No it wouldn’t.
That is what I read anyway. pedo in chief would presumably quash republican support for a new law, but really with all the dems they could get enough pubs to go along, maybe not to override a veto but enough to force the old baby raper in chief to publicly refuse to sign a law everyone supports, (assuming it’s not a freedom stealing bill, which it absolutely would be now that I think about it.)
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.
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.
Like that article, the actual complaint noticeably leaves some key questions open, while inviting certain conclusions. That these conclusions are not clearly stated as fact makes me fear that the intent is to mislead without lying.
As far as I can tell, the basis for the allegation is that a) CSAM was uploaded to X/Grok and b) the TOS state that uploaded files may be used for training.
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 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!
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.
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.
