• @ricecake
    link
    1
    edit-2
    24 days ago

    Again, that’s not how it works.

    Could you hypothetically describe csam without describing an adult with a child’s head, or specifying that it’s a naked child?
    That’s what a person trying to generate csam would need to do, because it doesn’t have those concepts.
    If you just asked it directly, like I said “horse flying a hangglider” before, you would get what you describe because it’s using the only “naked” it knows.
    You would need to specifically ask it to demphasize adult characteristics and emphasize child characteristics.

    That doesn’t mean that it was trained on that content.

    For context from the article:

    The DOJ alleged that evidence from his laptop showed that Anderegg “used extremely specific and explicit prompts to create these images,” including “specific ‘negative’ prompts—that is, prompts that direct the GenAI model on what not to include in generated content—to avoid creating images that depict adults.”

      • @ricecake
        link
        124 days ago

        ??? Knowing how stuff works is creepy now? Knowing what the law actually is is creepy?

        I think you’re just militantly attached to your own ignorant conception of how the technology works.

          • @ricecake
            link
            023 days ago

            You made an incorrect statement about how the technology worked and I corrected you. You doubled down and I made a more detailed explanation.
            You called me a “creep” for this, and again just now call me a “little unpaid footman”.

            If anything’s bullshit it’s your making it aggressive when it doesn’t need to be.

            I never said their system was perfect, or that they made no mistakes. I said the system does not need csam to generate csam. I explained why their actions weren’t illegal.

            You need to work on your reading comprehension if you can’t see how those are different from being a bootlicker.