No cp should be acceptable. But I argue AI generated isn’t cp.
This is no different than someone cutting out a child’s head from a Target catalog and sticking it to a body on a playboy magazine and masturbating to it.
Or someone using Photoshoping a kids head to a pornographic photo.
It’s just a more accessible version of those examples.
At the end of the day, what you do in your own home is your thing. t’s not my business what you do. As long as it doesn’t hurt/affect anyone, go ahead.
Yes, but how is the AI making the images or videos? It has to be trained on SOMETHING.
So, regardless of direct harm or not, harm is done at some point in the process and it needs to be stopped before it slips and gets worse because people “get used to” it.
Ai can combine two things. It can train on completely normal pictures of children, and it can train on completely normal adult porn, and then it can put those together.
This is the same reason it can do something like Godzilla with Sailor Moon’s hair, not because it trained on images of Godzilla with Sailor Moon’s hair, but because it can combine those two separate things.
Only the real things are actual humans who have likely not consented to ever being in this database at all let alone having parts of their likeness being used for this horrific shit. There is no moral argument for this garbage:
Technically speaking, if you post images of your child on social media, you have consented. If you never uploaded an image of your child online, you never need to worry.
Social media has been around a long time. It is not reasonable to expect people to think of technology they can’t imagine even existing ten years in the future when “consenting” to use a platform. Legally you are correct. Morally this is obviously terrible. Everything about how terms and conditions are communicated is designed to take advantage of people who won’t or are unable to parse its meaning. Consent needs to be informed.
Even when consent is informed it can still be fucky. Do you think I want to consent to an arbitration agreement with my employer or a social media platform? Fuck no, but I want a job and interaction so I go where the money/people are. I can’t hunt around for a place that will hire me and also doesn’t have arbitration.
Consent at the barrel of a gun, No matter how well informed, is no consent at all.
I also don’t agree with the killer games thing, but humans are very adaptable as a species.
Normally that’s a good thing, but in a case like this exposure to something shocking or upsetting can make it less shocking or upsetting over time (obviously not in every case). So, if AI is being used for something like this and being reported on isn’t it possible that people might slowly get desensitized to it over time?
But what if pedophiles in therapy are less likely to commit a crime if they have access to respective porn? Even better then, if it can be AI generated, no?
I wouldn’t think it needs to have child porn in the training data to be able to generate it. It has porn as the data, it knows what kids look like, merge the two. I think that works for anything AI knows about, make this resemble this.
It seems pretty understandable that companies wouldn’t allow it, it’s more that if it is illegal (like in some places) then that gets into really sketchy territory imo.
I don’t remember whether it was some news article or a discussion thread. But other people also suggested this might help during therapy and/or rehab. And they had the same argument in that nobody gets harmed in creating these.
As for uses outside of controlled therapy, I’d be afraid it might make people want the “real thing” at some point. And, as others already pointed out: Good luck proving to your local police that those photos on your laptop are all “fake”.
It fetishes the subject’s images, and nobody knows if it would lead to recivitism in child predators. It is generally accepted that producing drawings of CP alone is bad, let alone by AI. I remember some dude getting arrested at the Canadian border for sexual drawings of Bart and Lisa. Regardless, I would say that it is quite controversial and probably not what you’d want your company to be known for …
Gen AI doesn’t take cp content and recreates it. There wouldn’t be a point of gen AI if that is the case. It knows what regular porn looks like and what a child looks like and it generates an image. With those inputs it can create something new and at the same time hurt nobody.
I don’t need to. It’s is just the way gen AI works. It takes images of things it knows and then generates NEW content based on what it think you want with your prompts.
If I’m looking for a infant flying an airplane, gen AI knows what a pilot looks like and what a child looks like and it creates something new.
Also kids face data doesn’t mean they take the actual face of the actual child and paste it on a body. It might take an eyebrow and a freckle from one kidand use a hair style from another and eyes from someone else.
Lastly, the kids parents consented when they upload images of their kids on social media.
What AI are you talking about? Are you suggesting the commercial models from OpenAI are trained using CP? Or just that there are some models out there that were trained using CP? Because yeah, anyone can create a model at home and train it with whatever. But suggesting that OpenAI has a DB of tagged CP is a different story.
But you have to describe it. It doesn’t just suck in images at random. I imagine someone will remove CP when the images are reviewed. Or do you think they just download all images and add them to the training set without even looking at them?
So is that the Gen AI problem or the open internets problem. It sounds like you hate the open internet and awful people who put real cp online and not Gen AI.
Who actually gets hurt in AI generated cp? The servers?
Are you suggesting that this particular type of CP should be acceptable? (And suddenly “but I used AI” becomes a popular defence.)
No cp should be acceptable. But I argue AI generated isn’t cp.
This is no different than someone cutting out a child’s head from a Target catalog and sticking it to a body on a playboy magazine and masturbating to it.
Or someone using Photoshoping a kids head to a pornographic photo.
It’s just a more accessible version of those examples.
At the end of the day, what you do in your own home is your thing. t’s not my business what you do. As long as it doesn’t hurt/affect anyone, go ahead.
I almost respect you for taking a stance so blatantly against what most people believe.
Almost.
Making a photo of a child based off of real photos in a sexual manner is essentially using said child in the training data as the one in the act…
But who is actually getting hurt? No kid has gotten hurt using Gen AI.
A child whose abuse images are used to generate AI CP can be re-victimized by it, without even getting at the issues with normalizing it.
Maybe. Nobody can prove it.
I’m no pedo, but what you do in your own home and hurts nobody is your own thing.
Yes, but how is the AI making the images or videos? It has to be trained on SOMETHING.
So, regardless of direct harm or not, harm is done at some point in the process and it needs to be stopped before it slips and gets worse because people “get used to” it.
Ai can combine two things. It can train on completely normal pictures of children, and it can train on completely normal adult porn, and then it can put those together.
This is the same reason it can do something like Godzilla with Sailor Moon’s hair, not because it trained on images of Godzilla with Sailor Moon’s hair, but because it can combine those two separate things.
Fair enough. I still think it shouldn’t be allowed though.
Why? Not pressing but just curious what the logic is
Only the real things are actual humans who have likely not consented to ever being in this database at all let alone having parts of their likeness being used for this horrific shit. There is no moral argument for this garbage:
Technically speaking, if you post images of your child on social media, you have consented. If you never uploaded an image of your child online, you never need to worry.
Social media has been around a long time. It is not reasonable to expect people to think of technology they can’t imagine even existing ten years in the future when “consenting” to use a platform. Legally you are correct. Morally this is obviously terrible. Everything about how terms and conditions are communicated is designed to take advantage of people who won’t or are unable to parse its meaning. Consent needs to be informed.
Even when consent is informed it can still be fucky. Do you think I want to consent to an arbitration agreement with my employer or a social media platform? Fuck no, but I want a job and interaction so I go where the money/people are. I can’t hunt around for a place that will hire me and also doesn’t have arbitration.
Consent at the barrel of a gun, No matter how well informed, is no consent at all.
Ah, right, almost finally forgot the killer games rhetoric.
I also don’t agree with the killer games thing, but humans are very adaptable as a species.
Normally that’s a good thing, but in a case like this exposure to something shocking or upsetting can make it less shocking or upsetting over time (obviously not in every case). So, if AI is being used for something like this and being reported on isn’t it possible that people might slowly get desensitized to it over time?
But what if pedophiles in therapy are less likely to commit a crime if they have access to respective porn? Even better then, if it can be AI generated, no?
I wouldn’t think it needs to have child porn in the training data to be able to generate it. It has porn as the data, it knows what kids look like, merge the two. I think that works for anything AI knows about, make this resemble this.
That’s fair, but I still think it shouldn’t be accepted or allowed.
It seems pretty understandable that companies wouldn’t allow it, it’s more that if it is illegal (like in some places) then that gets into really sketchy territory imo.
I agree it shouldn’t be accepted, but I disagree on being allowed. I think it should be allowed because it doesn’t hurt anyone.
I don’t remember whether it was some news article or a discussion thread. But other people also suggested this might help during therapy and/or rehab. And they had the same argument in that nobody gets harmed in creating these.
As for uses outside of controlled therapy, I’d be afraid it might make people want the “real thing” at some point. And, as others already pointed out: Good luck proving to your local police that those photos on your laptop are all “fake”.
It fetishes the subject’s images, and nobody knows if it would lead to recivitism in child predators. It is generally accepted that producing drawings of CP alone is bad, let alone by AI. I remember some dude getting arrested at the Canadian border for sexual drawings of Bart and Lisa. Regardless, I would say that it is quite controversial and probably not what you’d want your company to be known for …
Japan has a vibrant drawn cp market yet they not not even close to the highest rate of child abuse. https://undispatch.com/here-is-how-every-country-ranks-on-child-safety/
Im not advocating for cp. I’m advocating for freedom.
A crime is only a crime if someone is negative effected. Gen AI is just a more accessible Photoshop.
All the little girls it learned from.
Gen AI doesn’t take cp content and recreates it. There wouldn’t be a point of gen AI if that is the case. It knows what regular porn looks like and what a child looks like and it generates an image. With those inputs it can create something new and at the same time hurt nobody.
Prove it. Please, show me the full training data to guarantee you’re right.
But also, all the kids used for “kids face data” didn’t sign up to be porn
I don’t need to. It’s is just the way gen AI works. It takes images of things it knows and then generates NEW content based on what it think you want with your prompts.
If I’m looking for a infant flying an airplane, gen AI knows what a pilot looks like and what a child looks like and it creates something new.
Also kids face data doesn’t mean they take the actual face of the actual child and paste it on a body. It might take an eyebrow and a freckle from one kidand use a hair style from another and eyes from someone else.
Lastly, the kids parents consented when they upload images of their kids on social media.
If you think that AI is only trained on legal images, I can’t convince you otherwise.
What AI are you talking about? Are you suggesting the commercial models from OpenAI are trained using CP? Or just that there are some models out there that were trained using CP? Because yeah, anyone can create a model at home and train it with whatever. But suggesting that OpenAI has a DB of tagged CP is a different story.
Open AI just scours the Internet. 100% chance it’s come across someone illegal and horrible. They don’t pre-approve its training data.
But you have to describe it. It doesn’t just suck in images at random. I imagine someone will remove CP when the images are reviewed. Or do you think they just download all images and add them to the training set without even looking at them?
I mean, you’re not giving a very convincing argument.
AI models are trained on the open Internet. Not curated. Open Internet has horrible things.
So is that the Gen AI problem or the open internets problem. It sounds like you hate the open internet and awful people who put real cp online and not Gen AI.