• fraval@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    I am not saying that this is a good thing, but rather generated by AI than the real thing… Still fuckedup though.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      The really sick aspect about this is that someone fed the AI with probably thousands of real child porn images to generate the fake ones.

        • LufyCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Your comment is based in ignorance of the technology. To have AI spit out images of a specific type, you also have to first feed it imagines of said type.

          • Protegee9850@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Again, you’re obviously ignorant of how this stuff actually works. That is simply not the case. Otherwise the training set would necessarily need to have images of every type that you hope to generate, an impossibility and which obviously isn’t the case - a very quick look at some of the crazier things people have generated disprove it. Training the model on nude and clothed images of adults and clothed images of children - as others gang pointed out - would allow you to generate nude images of children. Could a model have been fine tuned with CSAM - yes; but it’s certainly not a given, and probably not necessary.

            The stable diffusion sub has somewhat migrated over to the fediverse. You can find more information about how this stuff actually works beyond your introductory understanding of the concept there.

      • phx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Depends on the country. Some only criminalize depictions where children were exploited or harmed, so the cartoon stuff might get a pass despite being nasty. AI images I’d imagine it might be hard to prove they aren’t real children and at that point might be treated like a robbery with a fake weapon or selling fake drugs (still chargeable as the real thing in most places)

      • mido@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Not (necessarily) with real naked children. With kids with clothes, adults with clothes, and naked adults.

        It’s not hard for the AI to transpose from a clothed child to a naked one, it’s basically the same thing as switching your gender or making you look old

    • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Its still fucked up, because it starts with shit like this before moving into real world encounters. Over time the predators brain will see it as a new normal and will want to escalate.

  • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    “Roughly 80 percent of respondents” to a poll posted in a dark web forum with 3,000 members said that “they had used or intended to use AI tools to create child sexual abuse images,”

    wtf

      • EndOfLine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        There are laws against it in the US.

        From the article:

        Two officials from the US Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section told The Washington Post that AI-generated images depicting “minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct” are illegal under at least two US laws.

        One law “makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene.” The other law “defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor,” including “computer-generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor.”

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Similar laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court in the past under the argument that if no children are being harmed (ie, these aren’t pictures of actual children), then there is no basis for the government to restrict creation and possession of the images.

          • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            Thats pretty fucking dumb considering it normalizes the idea of sexualizing children. Are policymakers really oblivious to how that will go?

            • CaptainEffort@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Does video game violence normalize regular violence? Are people playing violent video games going out and harming people.

              Can’t believe this argument is still being used in 2023.

      • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t think that number means anything. The way it’s phrased it’s 80% of some unknown percentage of 3000 users, so could be 5 people responded, one that is an actual pedo said ‘yes’, one that is an actual pedo said ‘no’, and the rest just said ‘yes’ to be edgy.