Europol has supported authorities from 19 countries in a large-scale hit against child sexual exploitation that has led to 25 arrests worldwide. The suspects were part of a criminal group whose members were engaged in the distribution of images of minors fully generated by artificial intelligence (AI).
The term “computer (or digitally) generated child sexual abuse material” encompasses all forms of material representing children involved in sexual activities and/or in a sexualised manner,
with the particularity that the production of the material does not involve actual contact abuse of
real children but is artificially created to appear as if real children were depicted. It includes what is
sometimes referred to as “virtual child pornography” as well as “pseudo photographs”.
[…]
There is nothing “virtual” or unreal
in the sexualisation of children, and these terms risk undermining the harm that children can suffer
from these types of practices or the effect material such as this can have on the cognitive distortions
of offenders or potential offenders. Therefore, terms such as “computer-generated child sexual abuse
material” appear better suited to this phenomenon [than virtual child pornography].
Terminology Guidelines for the
Protection of Children from Sexual
Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, section F.4.ii
There’s a reputable source for the terminology usage.
If you want to keep defending CG CSAM, take it up with the professionals
I’m going to hold the words of the people who are actually fighting against child exploration in much higher regard than someone who is defending AI-generated CSAM/CSEM. And honestly, I don’t understand why you’re defending it. It’s weirding me out…lol
As I wrote in another comment,
You can ask the model to generate murder scenes. You then have AI-generated images of murder scenes. That doesn’t mean anybody was killed.
I’m fucking disappointed that anyone professionally engaged in this wants to equate damning evidence of physical abuse with generic representation of the concept - for the exact reasons already described.
There is an insurmountable difference between any depiction of a sex crime involving fictional children - and the actual sexual abuse of real living children. Fuck entirely off about throwing aspersions for why this distinction matters. If you don’t think child rape is fundamentally worse than some imagined depiction of same - fuck you.
“Generated sexual abuse” is explicitly being equated to actual child rape.
These 25 people were not charged with thinkin’ real hard about the possibility of murder. The sting is described like they were caught doing some murder.
There’s a reputable source for the terminology usage.
If you want to keep defending CG CSAM, take it up with the professionals
“The professionals are also full of shit” is not much of an argument.
I’m going to hold the words of the people who are actually fighting against child exploration in much higher regard than someone who is defending AI-generated CSAM/CSEM. And honestly, I don’t understand why you’re defending it. It’s weirding me out…lol
As I wrote in another comment,
You can ask the model to generate murder scenes. You then have AI-generated images of murder scenes. That doesn’t mean anybody was killed.
That’s all this is.
Or that any child was “explored.”
I’m fucking disappointed that anyone professionally engaged in this wants to equate damning evidence of physical abuse with generic representation of the concept - for the exact reasons already described.
There is an insurmountable difference between any depiction of a sex crime involving fictional children - and the actual sexual abuse of real living children. Fuck entirely off about throwing aspersions for why this distinction matters. If you don’t think child rape is fundamentally worse than some imagined depiction of same - fuck you.
That’s not what it is.
Just like AI-generated murder scenes are not being equated to physical evidence of someone having been murdered.
I think you’re getting caught up in semantics. Can we at least agree that those AI-generated images are bad?
“Generated sexual abuse” is explicitly being equated to actual child rape.
These 25 people were not charged with thinkin’ real hard about the possibility of murder. The sting is described like they were caught doing some murder.
The 25 people charged may have had other incriminating evidence against them.
If you take issue with the law, take it up with the jurisdictions.
If you think it should be perfectly okay for people to produce AI-generated CSEM, then I’m not really sure we can come to an agreement here.