175
US judge ruled AI-generated child sexual abuse material is protected by First Amendment. (reason.com)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1368970/judge-ruled-ai-generated-child-sex-abuse-material-is-protected-by-first-amendment

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    So get rid of that dataset, you'll still have systems that can generate similar images anyway. If it can generate images of things that do not and cannot exist in reality then it can generate CSAM without using real CSAM.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent