Criminalizing the creation, possession, or viewing of entirely artificial artwork is beyond unethical; it’s extraordinarily evil.
No it isn’t.
I don’t care if you find someone’s artwork gross, troubling, distasteful, immoral, etc… that’s art.
No, it’s child porn.
Careful, any time I point this out, the fascists come out of the woodwork to call me a pedo.
Can’t imagine why.
You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?
So it’s wrong for it to be based on one child, but according to you the AI “art” (as you keep calling it) is okay as long as there are thousands of victims instead?
So you’re cool with images of 6 year olds being penetrated by a 40 year old as long as “tHe Ai DrEw iT sO nObOdY gOt HuRt”? I guess you could just set it as your desktop and phone wallpaper and everything would be fine. Let me know how that works out for you.
That’s some stunning mental gymnastics right there.
You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?
Can you share a source? Just like how people utilize the internet to distribute CP, there are undoubtedly circles where people are using ml for CP. However my understanding is that by and large, popular models are not intentionally trained on any.
The pedofiles that are smart enough to not get caught and use technology like tor and encrypt everything and can figure out how to use stable diffusion will be the pedofiles that have custom models trained on real children.
And if you and me consider the possibility in a casual conversation online, they have also considered the possibility, heavily researched and implemented it if it’s at all possible. And they know how to not get caught.
But it’s okay, it’s “art” after all and we can’t ban art because that’s evil… Right… Right?
…okay, seeing as you haven’t actually done any research, yet arrived at a conclusion, a conversation about this is going to be difficult.
Let’s get more specific so we can have an actual conversation. When you say “the AI”, what do you mean? Dall-e, midjourney, or some guy training and using their own model on a local computer?
Are you familiar with large models being able to compose concepts they’ve seen, to produce something not found in its training data?
You used a technical assertion in your argument. Out of curiosity, I wanted to learn more and asked you for sources.
You can neither prove nor are you capable of discussing said technical assertion. I am now going to leave the conversation. Seeing as you can’t prove or even discuss it, I’d hope you avoid using it in the future, or at least learn more about it.
You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?
Disingenuous and misleading statement. No readily available AI is trained on CP.
So it’s wrong for it to be based on one child, but according to you the AI “art” (as you keep calling it) is okay as long as there are thousands of victims instead?
Disingenuous and misleading statement. I’m guessing you don’t understand how AI works. As for AI output, a randomly generated nonexistent person is nonexistent. Simple as that.
Sidenote: I disapprove of nonconsensual Photoshop and AI illustrations of real people, except for fair use cases such as satire. AI is just another illustrative tool, and the choice of tool is beside the point.
So you’re cool with images of 6 year olds being penetrated by a 40 year old as long as “tHe Ai DrEw iT sO nObOdY gOt HuRt”?
No, I am not. And that is still utterly unimportant. It doesn’t matter how I feel about someone’s fictitious illustrations, sculptures, writings, or anything else created by a person or AI that is wholly fictitious.
That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.
That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.
It does matter how myself and wider society view disgusting content. It matters a lot. And society absolutely has a say of it’s acceptance or otherwise to such content. You saying otherwise is absurd.
In the same way that I can’t and shouldn’t write something incrediblely racist and pretend it’s ‘art’. Even if AI made it.
Attempting to give AI child porn a pass, as you are doing for some baffling reason, absolutely will create further harm further down the line.
I’d say it’s because the person you’re replying to rightfully sees it as a slippery slope. If you say this fake image that didn’t directly harm anyone is illegal, what’s to stop you from saying some other fake image that’s much more in line with social tastes is also illegal? Ie an artwork made of human shit, for example. Most people would be repulsed by that. But it doesn’t change the fact that it could be art. As long as it doesn’t concretely harm someone, it’s hard to equate it to said harm.
I know you know this, but you are not crazy. I’m astonished you are being down voted so hard. The pedo apology is so strong it’s making me not want to use Lemmy. This thread is worse than reddit.
No it isn’t.
No, it’s child porn.
Can’t imagine why.
You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?
So it’s wrong for it to be based on one child, but according to you the AI “art” (as you keep calling it) is okay as long as there are thousands of victims instead?
So you’re cool with images of 6 year olds being penetrated by a 40 year old as long as “tHe Ai DrEw iT sO nObOdY gOt HuRt”? I guess you could just set it as your desktop and phone wallpaper and everything would be fine. Let me know how that works out for you.
That’s some stunning mental gymnastics right there.
Can you share a source? Just like how people utilize the internet to distribute CP, there are undoubtedly circles where people are using ml for CP. However my understanding is that by and large, popular models are not intentionally trained on any.
I am categorically not researching that.
Put it this way…
The pedofiles that are smart enough to not get caught and use technology like tor and encrypt everything and can figure out how to use stable diffusion will be the pedofiles that have custom models trained on real children.
And if you and me consider the possibility in a casual conversation online, they have also considered the possibility, heavily researched and implemented it if it’s at all possible. And they know how to not get caught.
But it’s okay, it’s “art” after all and we can’t ban art because that’s evil… Right… Right?
…okay, seeing as you haven’t actually done any research, yet arrived at a conclusion, a conversation about this is going to be difficult.
Let’s get more specific so we can have an actual conversation. When you say “the AI”, what do you mean? Dall-e, midjourney, or some guy training and using their own model on a local computer?
Are you familiar with large models being able to compose concepts they’ve seen, to produce something not found in its training data?
What on earth makes you think I wish to have an extended conversation about this?
Child porn is not art. Even if AI made it.
Banning child porn is not immoral or evil.
Simple as that.
If you cannot accept that basic premise then I have nothing to say to you.
I have said literally nothing about ethics.
You used a technical assertion in your argument. Out of curiosity, I wanted to learn more and asked you for sources.
You can neither prove nor are you capable of discussing said technical assertion. I am now going to leave the conversation. Seeing as you can’t prove or even discuss it, I’d hope you avoid using it in the future, or at least learn more about it.
Disingenuous and misleading statement. No readily available AI is trained on CP.
Disingenuous and misleading statement. I’m guessing you don’t understand how AI works. As for AI output, a randomly generated nonexistent person is nonexistent. Simple as that.
Sidenote: I disapprove of nonconsensual Photoshop and AI illustrations of real people, except for fair use cases such as satire. AI is just another illustrative tool, and the choice of tool is beside the point.
No, I am not. And that is still utterly unimportant. It doesn’t matter how I feel about someone’s fictitious illustrations, sculptures, writings, or anything else created by a person or AI that is wholly fictitious.
That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.
It does matter how myself and wider society view disgusting content. It matters a lot. And society absolutely has a say of it’s acceptance or otherwise to such content. You saying otherwise is absurd.
In the same way that I can’t and shouldn’t write something incrediblely racist and pretend it’s ‘art’. Even if AI made it.
Attempting to give AI child porn a pass, as you are doing for some baffling reason, absolutely will create further harm further down the line.
I’d say it’s because the person you’re replying to rightfully sees it as a slippery slope. If you say this fake image that didn’t directly harm anyone is illegal, what’s to stop you from saying some other fake image that’s much more in line with social tastes is also illegal? Ie an artwork made of human shit, for example. Most people would be repulsed by that. But it doesn’t change the fact that it could be art. As long as it doesn’t concretely harm someone, it’s hard to equate it to said harm.
It’s child porn.
Child. Pornography.
It is not “Art”.
The slippery slope is people like you confusing the two and trying to somehow justify CP as free speech/art.
I don’t care how it is made. There is a line. This crosses it. Simple as that.
I know you know this, but you are not crazy. I’m astonished you are being down voted so hard. The pedo apology is so strong it’s making me not want to use Lemmy. This thread is worse than reddit.
Terrifying.