- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Late last year, California passed a law against the possession or distribution of child sex abuse material (CSAM) that has been generated by AI. The law went into effect on January 1, and Sacramento police announced yesterday that they have already arrested their first suspect—a 49-year-old Pulitzer-prize-winning cartoonist named Darrin Bell.
The new law, which you can read here, declares that AI-generated CSAM is harmful, even without an actual victim. In part, says the law, this is because all kinds of CSAM can be used to groom children into thinking sexual activity with adults is normal. But the law singles out AI-generated CSAM for special criticism due to the way that generative AI systems work.
"The creation of CSAM using AI is inherently harmful to children because the machine-learning models utilized by AI have been trained on datasets containing thousands of depictions of known CSAM victims," it says, “revictimizing these real children by using their likeness to generate AI CSAM images into perpetuity.”
Edit: Bolded out certain parts to clarify why they’re doing it.
I’m locking this thread because I won’t have time to watch it.
Yes, you copied and pasted the section of the article I disagree with. Did you have a point?
Don’t forget the bolded section which answers your questions because it is being trained on specific child porn. You’re dangerously close to sticking up for child porn. I’m also the mod, so tread lightly on that issue.
You aren’t answering his question above and completely missing his point.
And then threatening him.
He isn’t asking if there is CSAM in the dataset but why it would matter. Granted there is a lot to be said on the subject but you aren’t saying much other than yetrippingbastard behavior.
I did answer with the bolded text. Move along.
The bolded section doesn’t answer my questions because my questions are disagreeing with their assertions.
Then let’s end this discussion here, I disagree.