It seems crazy to me but ive seen this concept floated on several different post. There seems to be a number of users here that think there is some way AI generated CSAM will reduce Real life child victims.
Like the comments on this post here.
https://sh.itjust.works/post/6220815
I find this argument crazy. I don’t even know where to begin to talk about how many ways this will go wrong.
My views ( which are apprently not based in fact) are that AI CSAM is not really that different than “Actual” CSAM. It will still cause harm when viewing. And is still based in the further victimization of the children involved.
Further the ( ridiculous) idea that making it legal will some how reduce the number of predators by giving predators an outlet that doesnt involve real living victims, completely ignores the reality of the how AI Content is created.
Some have compared pedophilia and child sexual assault to a drug addiction. Which is dubious at best. And pretty offensive imo.
Using drugs has no inherent victim. And it is not predatory.
I could go on but im not an expert or a social worker of any kind.
Can anyone link me articles talking about this?
Boy this sure seems like something that wouldn’t be that hard to just… do a study on, publish a paper perhaps? Get peer reviewed?
It’s always weird for me when people have super strong opinions on topics that you could just resolve by studying and doing science on.
“In my opinion, I think the square root of 7 outta be 3”
Well I mean, that’s nice but you do know there’s a way we can find out what the square root of seven is, right? We can just go look and see what the actual answer is and make an informed decision surrounding that. Then you don’t need to have an “opinion” on the matter because it’s been put to rest and now we can start talking about something more concrete and meaningful… like interpreting the results of our science and figuring out what they mean.
I’d much rather discuss the meaning of the outcomes of a study on, say,
AI Generated CSAM's impact on proclivity in child predators, and hashing out if it really indicates an increase or decrease, perhaps flaws in the study, and what to do with the info.As opposed too just gesturing and hand waving about whether it would or wouldn’t have an impact. It’s pointless to argue about what color the sky outta be if we can just, you know, open the window and go see what color the sky actually is…
I love your enthusiasm for research but if only it were that easy. I’m a phd researcher and my field is sexual violence. It’s really not that easy to just go out and interview child sex offenders about their experiences of perpetration.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
While I agree that studies would help, actually performing those studies has historically been very difficult. Because the first step to doing a study on pedophilia is actually finding a significant enough number of pedophiles who are willing and able to join the study. And that by itself is a tall order.
Then you ask these pedophiles (who are for some reason okay with admitting to the researchers that they are, in fact, pedophiles) to self-report their crimes. And you expect them to be honest? Any statistician will tell you that self-reported data is consistently the least reliable data, and that’s doubly unreliable when you’re basically asking them to give you a confession that could send them to federal prison.
Or maybe you try going the court records/police FOIA request route? Figure out which court cases deal with pedos, then figure out if AI images were part of the evidence? But that has issues of its own, because you’re specifically excluding all the pedos who haven’t offended or been caught; You’re only selecting the ones who have been taken to court, so your entire sample pool is biased. You’re also missing any pedos who have sealed records or sealed evidence, which is fairly common.
Maybe you go the anonymous route. Let people self report via a QR code or anonymous mail. But a single 4chan post could ruin your entire sample pool, and there’s nothing to stop bad actors from intentionally tainting your study. Because there are plenty of people who would jump at a chance to make pedos look even worse than they already do, to try and get AI CSAM banned.
The harsh reality is that studies haven’t been done because there simply isn’t a reliable way to gather data while controlling for bias. With pedophilia being taboo, any pedophiles will be dissuaded from participating. Because it means potentially outing yourself as a pedophile. And at that point, your best case scenario is having enough money to ghost your entire life.