• LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    It should be illegal either way, to be clear. But you think theyre not training models on CSAM? Youre trusting in the morality/ethics of people creating AI generated child pornography?

    • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The use of CSAM in training generative AI models is an issue no matter how these models are being used.

      • L_Acacia@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The training doesn’t use csam, 0% chance big tech would use that in their dataset. The models are somewhat able to link concept like red and car, even if it had never seen a red car before.

        • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, with models like SD at least, the datasets are large enough and the employees are few enough that it is impossible to have a human filter every image. They scrape them from the web and try to filter with AI, but there is still a chance of bad images getting through. This is why most companies install filters after the model as well as in the training process.

    • mindbleach
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’re trusting that billion-dollar corporate efforts don’t possess and label hyper-illegal images, specifically so people can make more of them. Because why the fuck would they.

      • Bridger
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If there was more money to be made than the cost of defending it they most definitely would.

        • mindbleach
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          ‘Google would love to be in the child pornography business’ is quite a fucking take.

          These assholes are struggling to stop their networks from generating Mickey Mouse even when someone specifically asks for Mickey Mouse. Why would any organization that size want radioactive criminal-to-possess inputs stirred into their venture-capital cash cow?

          • Bridger
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’re fine with platforming fascists for a buck. Why would they have a problem with kid porn, especially if they can maintain a veneer of plausible deniability