Re:FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
by Sporktacular on Sunday June 02, 2024 @03:34AM
(#40552167)
"it is OK for them to have bizarre sexual likes and dislikes."
I agree, so long as they are not consuming something that harmed anyone. Just as we know banning ivory sales reduces elephant poaching, contributing to demand causes harm. Putting an AI step in between the CP and its consumption is the same as before, it doesn't change anything.
Re:FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
by roenxi on Tuesday June 04, 2024 @06:45PM
(#40579713)
It changes everything. It removes the part where harm needs to be done to satisfy demand. If someone says "I want a picture of X!" and an AI generates them the picture, no harm is done.
Re:FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
by Sporktacular on Tuesday June 11, 2024 @05:34AM
(#40644256)
The harm was done. It was just done before the consumption step, just like buying an ivory shoehorn or making a photocopy of an existing image of child abuse.
The only way around it is the model is not trained on any child abuse material, otherwise legally it's consuming a CP product.
Sounds like I'd be happy to go with that. You're taking it to the logical conclusion and I generally agree. The problem to me is (1) people abusing children and (2) people paying other people to abuse children.
> Not sure what tax dollars have to do with this but IMO it's a small price to pay for an important service.
It isn't an important service. With the advent of generative AI models, going after people for possessing dodgy images is now more than likely persecuting people who haven't done any harm to anyone and aren't going to.
We really should have learned this lesson after Turing. If people aren't harming anyone then it is OK for them to have bizarre sexual likes and dislikes.