Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
view the rest of the comments
How are they abuse images if no abuse took place to create them?
Because they are images of children being graphically raped, a form of abuse. Is an AI generated picture of a tree not a picture of a tree?
No it isn't, not anymore than a drawing of a car is a real car, or drawings of money are real money.
Material showing a child being sexually abused is child sexual abuse material.
And an AI generated image does not show a child being abused
Bullshit and you know it.
Nobody is saying they're real, and I now see what you're saying.
By your answers, your question is more "at-face-value" than people assume:
You are asking:
"Did violence occur in real life in order to produce this violent picture?"
The answer is, of course, no.
But people are interpreting it as:
"This is a picture of a man being stoned to death. Is this picture violent, if no violence took place in real life?"
To which answer is, yes.
Oops you forgot to use logic. As per the comment you're replying to, the more apt analogy would be: is an AI generated picture of a car still a picture of a car.
That has nothing to do with logic? Its pointing out that both drawings and AI gens are not really the things they might depict
It's a picture of a hallucination of a tree. Distinguishing real from unreal ought to be taken more seriously given the direction technology is moving.
If the model was trained on csam then it is dependent on abuse
That's a heck of a slippery slope I just fell down.
If responses generated from AI can be held criminally liable for their training data's crimes, we can all be held liable for all text responses from GPT, since it's being trained on reddit data and likely has access to multiple instances of brigading, swatting, man hunts, etc.
You just summarized the ongoing ethical concerns experts and common folk alike have been talking about in the past few years.
As I said in my other comment, the model does not have to be trained on CSAM to create images like this.
That irrelevant, any realistic depiction of children engaged in sexual activity meets the legal definition of csam. Even using filters on images of consenting adults could qualify as csam if the intent was to make the actors appear underage.
doesn't even have to be that realistic.
https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/bizarre-australian-criminal-cases-the-simpsons-porn-case/
I mean... regardless of your moral point of view, you should be able to answer that yourself. Here's an analogy: suppose I draw a picture of a man murdering a dog. It's an animal abuse image, even though no actual animal abuse took place.
Its not though, its just a drawing.
Except that it is an animal abuse image, drawing, painting, fiddle, whatever you want to call it. It's still the depiction of animal abuse.
Same with child abuse, rape, torture, killing or beating.
Now, I know what you mean by your question. You're trying to establish that the image/drawing/painting/scribble is harmless because no actual living being suffering happened. But that doesn't mean that they don't depict it.
Again, I'm seeing this from a very practical point of view. However you see these images through the lens of your own morals or points of view, that's a totally different thing.
And when characters are killed on screen in movies, are those snuff films?
No, they're violent films.
Snuff is a different thing, because it's supposed to be real. Snuff films depict violence in a very real sense. So so they're violent. Fiction films also depict violence. And so they're violent too. It's just that they're not about real violence.
I guess what you're really trying to say is that "Generated abuse images are not real abuse images." I agree with that.
But at face value, "Generated abuse images are not abuse images" is incorrect.