If you want to be taken seriously about child abuse, have you tried not having thumbnails that look like a ten-year-old made them 😂
That’s mental outlaw not me. Famous for his style of thumbnails
Famous
You keep using zis word. I do not sink it means what you sink it means
Dude you’re on lemmy, relatively mental outlaw is the Samuel L. Jackson of privacy.
I have never heard of dis man
He is just a humble chicken rancher…
While lolicon is absolutely disgusting, its not actually csam. Legislation won’t work either and is honestly a waste of time. Any effort spent protecting digital children should instead be spent protecting real ones.
The problem is that it’s not just cartoon characters, but also realistic looking people. That makes it, especially in the next years when the techniques improve, impossible to know what is fake and what is not and thus the fake ones should also be banned. And these models are trained on images of actual abused children, which of course is the main problem with this.
This is the first I’m hearing about models trained on real CSAM.
It wouldnt surprise me tbh. From my superficial visit to the darknet years ago, it seemed like these csam consumers have specific “favourites” among the victims whom they want to see more of. At least that’s what I remember from clicking a link to such a chan and noping out of it.
It is the first you are heading about this because it is bs.
In general terms, making an idea illegal, and then making representations of that idea illegal, are going to be forever, at best to treadmill, and at worst reduce the effectiveness and reputation of law.
This is really about thought crime. If somebody can draw stick figures, and that can be illegal depending on interpretation. That’s thought crime.
It’s impossible to completely stamp out thought crime. Computer tools can be used to further thought crime, because they can be used for creative purposes.
If you restrict the use of creative tools, to only a trusted few, or hobble tools for everyone: you create central authority over creative tools, which has its own issues.
It’s impossible to completely stamp out thought crime.
Also, trying to do so through law and enforcement sets a dangerous precedent.
I suspect it would be better to approach it as a public health issue.
And then you run into legal arguments that sound like people trying to jailbreak GPT prompt control.
I’m going to preface all of the following creative work by saying that we live in a universe where everyone is a vampire that never dies, but ages very slowly. All participants in this manga are at least 213 years old…
In some countries all forms of description of underage sexual activities are illegal. So the sentance “She was having sex” is perfectly legal, but add an age marker and it is illegal. “She was having sex on the day before her 18th birthday”.
It is hard to legislate around as there will always ve ways to avoid it and get around it. But all this just sounds like the normal hype => fear => hype => fear, etc cycle that all new tech goes through.
Not to mention that number changes by region. In Bahrain it’s 21 not 18.
Some countries have different age restrictions for hetro and homosexual encounters too. Not to mention that in a lot of countries it just outright illegal, and everything not condeming it can be seen as encouraging it and hence illegal too.
We humans make some weird laws around sex.
This is especially damning on the internet, because genuinely intolerable pursuits directly benefit from lesser problems being treated as equally bad. Filesharing networks work better with more users. Chasing merely distasteful people toward paranoid systems softens the reputation of those systems and makes the worst minority of traffic easier to hide.
There is no such thing.
God dammit, the entire point of calling it CSAM is to distinguish photographic evidence of child rape from made-up images that make people feel icky.
If you want them treated the same, legally - go nuts. Have that argument. But stop treating the two as the same thing, and fucking up clear discussion of the worst thing on the internet.
You can’t generate assault. It is impossible to abuse children who do not exist.
Did nobody in this comment section read the video at all?
The only case mentioned by this video is a case where highschool students distributed (counterfeit) sexually explicit images of their classmates which had been generated by an AI model.
I don’t know if it meets the definition of CSAM because the events depicted in the images are fictional, but the subjects are real.
These children do exist, some have doubtlessly been traumatized by this. This crime has victims.
I think a lot of people are arguing that the models which are used to generate these types of content are trained on literal CSAM. So it’s like CSAM with extra steps.
Those people are morons.
In most (all?) countries no such distinction is made, the material is illegal all the same.
Didn’t watch the video, but I don’t care about AI CSAM. Even if it looks completely lifelike, it’s not real.
Prove it’s fake when some of it of your daughter is making it’s way around school.
You’ve missed the point. Fake or not it does damage to people. And eventually it won’t be possible to determine if it’s real or not.
When that becomes widespread, photos will be generateable for literally everyone, not just minors but every person with photos online. It will be a societal shift; images will be assumed to be AI generated, making any guilt or shame about a nude photo existing obselete.
What a disguising assumption. And the best argument against AI I’ve ever heard.
I mean, anyone with enough artistic talent can draw whatever they would like right now. With AI image generation, it essentially just gives everyone the ability to draw whatever they want. You can try to fight the tech all you want, but it’s a losing battle.
You may not like it, but do you really see another likely scenario?
Disguising or disgusting?
AI generated porn depicting real people seems like a different and much bigger issue
AI generated CSAM in general, while disgusting, at least doesn’t directly harm people, fabricated nudes most definitely does, regardless of the age of the victim
You just implied children aren’t real people.
AI generated nudes of noone in particular isn’t hurting anyone, not directly at least, but AI generated nudes of a specific person, using that persons likeness and everything, that’s much worse
AI can generate faces of people that don’t actually exist, that’s what i mean
The post made it seem like it was about AI generated CSAM in general, which while disgusting, doesn’t directly harm anyone, but then the comments spoke about AI generated CSAM depicting a real individual, and that’s much worse, but also not a problem that’s specific to children
deleted by creator
Currently pedos tend to group up and share real csam, and these “communities” probably serves to normalize the activities for the members, perhaps being able to generate it will keep pedos from clumping together, reducing the degree of normalization so they’re more likely to seek help, and as a bonus, real children aren’t preyed upon to create said csam?
And saying that removing ai tools that can generate csam will lead to them “attempt to fuck children in the streets” as you say, would you also say that we should stop criminalizing the distributing existing csam, because the existing csam that is shared in paedophile circles is all that is keeping them from going out and raping children?
AI CSAM is incredibly harmful. All CSAM is harmful. It’s been shown to increase chance of pedophilic abuse.
Stop defending CSAM, HOLY SHIT.
It’s been shown to increase chance of pedophilic abuse.
Can you link me a source for that, please?
Jeez, calm down
I am not defending CSAM, just saying that CSAM depicting an actual existing child is magnitudes worse, as is any other kind of fabricated sexual content of real people.
Take loli porn for example, it’s probably bad for society, but if someone makes loli porn based on the appearance of an actual individual, that’s much more fucked up, and in addition to the “normal” detrimental effects, that would also harm that victim in a much more direct way.
Eh, if you train a ai with CSAM to make more CSAM that a different story. But in general yes.
What data is it trained on? This isn’t meant to be a “gotcha” question, I’m wondering about it.
An image of an “avocado chair” is built on images of avocados, and images of chairs.
Creating, collecting and sharing CSAM is in the law already. There are orgs and agencies for tracking and prosecuting these violations.
It’s like fighting against 3d printers because you can make yourself a diy gun, a thing that have never being possible before because we got all pipes banned from hardware stores. The means to produce fictional CSAM always existed and would exist, the problem is with people who use a LMM, a camera, a fanfic to create and share that content. Or a Lemmy community that was a problem in recent months.
It’s better to ensure the existing means of fighting such content are effective and society is educated about this danger, know how to avoid and report it.
What the hell is this guy?
“Here’s a case where people made and shared fake nudes of real underage girls, doing harm to the girls”
“But what the hell, that’s kind of hard to stop. Oh also here’s this guy who went to prison for it because it’s already illegal.”
“Really the obvious solution everyone’s missing is: If you’re a girl in the world, just keep images of yourself off the internet”
“Problem solved. Right?”
I’m only slightly exaggerating.
He is a deepfake of luke smith.
Also, I think the most governments would be able to do is to increase the friction of this process by giving all ai-gen photos an ‘id’ to track later and probably controlling open-source models, but that’s harder to do. Most probably old senators who don’t know gmail will pass unenforceable laws which won’t do jackshit but get them votes.
The point I’m trying to make is, you don’t even have to do that.
There are already laws against revenge porn and realistic child porn. You don’t have to “prevent” this stuff from happening. That is, as he accurately points out, more or less impossible. But, if it happens you can absolutely do an investigation, and if you can find out who did it, you can put them in jail. That to me sounds like a pretty good solution and I’m still waiting to hear what his issue is with it.
I don’t have any problems with the points you discussed either. Can’t speak for him though.
Me: I just want real looking dinosaurs with cool, long flowing hair.
Loli stuff isn’t CSAM. You can find it bad, but its still just a drawing/generative image. No real person was harmed in general.
deleted by creator
You know, loli can also just mean flat chest and young looking, it doesn’t mean its portraying a actual child… And nope. Therefore you can’t guarantee shit you pull out of your ass. Many of those watching such stuff find actual children very disgusting.
I am not sure how a person that looks like a child and has a very childish voice can only be a “young looking” adult.
Strictly speaking this counts as loli as well…
Yes but what I mean is loli porn. That ain’t porn and also she is not that small and her voice isn’t very childish.
There is porn of her and her voice is pretty “childish”
I meant the anime itself. There always is porn of everything.
deleted by creator
The edp picture is very funny
Couldn’t the fact that AI generated content be reproduceable if give the exact parameters(or coordinates in latent space) and model help remove the confusion? Include those as meta data and train investigators on how to use to distinguish generated content from actual evidence.
There’s an option to speed up generation but it will make it less deterministic, like in it’s 98% the same image but a little different. Also it’s very hard to reproduce the same hard and software generation. That’s the first issue.
The second is: I had examples of images with generation data, that I could reproduce to look 99% like the original and then just updating a single word or part of the training data (different Lora version for example) , switched the person away or their appearance changed a completely. (Imagine a picture of a street and a car is suddenly not there, or it’s blue instead of red). It will make reproducibility not a reliable option. Backgrounds of images are even less reliable than the focus object.
Is it really CSAM if no actual children are involved? Isn’t that the whole point of the term “CSAM”? Not that artificial underage porn isn’t also wrong, but it’s clearly different and CSAM warrants more immediate action.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=yMHK4-J5Sz4&t=533
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
And very much supported by lemmy.
None of these servers are doing this. Some dude is running a script and calling it a day.
What do you people think this will lead to? Is it solvable or not? and if yes then how?
