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
[–] -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