News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
This is tough. If it was just a sicko who generated the images for himself locally... that is the definition of a victimless crime, no? And it might actually dissuade him from seeking out real CSAM....
BUT, iirc he was actually distributing the material, and even contacted minors, so... yeah he definitely needed to be arrested.
But, I'm still torn on the first scenario...
To me it comes down to a single question:
"Does exposure and availability to CSAM for pedophiles correlate with increased or decreased likelihood of harming a child?"
If there's a reduction effect by providing an outlet for arousal that isn't actually harming anyone - that sounds like a pretty big win.
If there's a force multiplier effect where exposure and availability means it's even more of an obsession and focus such that there's increased likelihood to harm children, then society should make the AI generated version illegal too.
Hoooooly hell, good luck getting that study going. No ethical concerns there!
How they've done it in the past is by tracking the criminal history of people caught with csam, arrested for abuse, or some combination thereof, or by tracking the outcomes of people seeking therapy for pedophilia.
It's not perfect due to the sample biases, but the results are also quite inconsistent, even amongst similar populations.
I'm willing to bet it'll differ from person to person, to complicate matters further
I think the general consensus is that availability of CSAM is bad, because it desensitizes and makes harming of actual children more likely. But I must admit that I only remember reading about that and don't have a scientific source.
What is the AI trained on?
Image-generating AI is capable of generating images that are not like anything that was in its training set.
In that case probably the strongest argument is that if it were legal, many people would get off charges of real CSAM because the prosecuter can't prove that it wasn't AI generated.
Better a dozen innocent men go to prison than one guilty man go free?
In this case if they know it's illegal, then they knowingly broke the law? Things are still illegal even if you don't agree with it.
Most (many?) Western countries also ban cartoon underage content, what's the justification for that?
You suggested a situation where "many people would get off charges of real CSAM because the prosecuter can't prove that it wasn't AI generated." That implies that in that situation AI-generated CSAM is legal. If it's not legal then what does it matter if it's AI-generated or not?
That's not quite what I was getting at over the course of the comment thread.
It one scenario, AI material is legal. Those with real CSAM use the defense that it's actually AI and you can't prove otherwise. In this scenario, no innocent men are going to prison, and most guilty men aren't either.
The second scenario we make AI material illegal. Now the ones with real CSAM go to prison, and many people with AI material do too because it's illegal and they broke the law.
This comment thread started with you implying that the AI was trained on illegal material, I'm really not sure how it's got to this point from that one.
Im completely against restrictions on art depictions and writing. Those don't have the dangers of being real but being pawned off as fake.
The comment I'm responding to is proposing a situation in which it isn't illegal.
If it's illegal, and they produce the AI CSAM anyway, they've broken the law and are by definition not Innocent.
To be honest, if it prevents that one guilty man from carrying out such high degrees of abuse to a dozen children, I can't say I'd say no.
I want to stress that this isn't sensationalist grandstanding like wanting to ban rock music or video games or spying on all digital communication in the name of protecting the children. It's just the pragmatic approach towards preventing CSAM in an age where the "know it when I see it" definition of pornographic material is starting to blur the lines.
Well, your philosophy runs counter to the fundamentals of Western justice systems, then.
Why is that? I'd consider this equivalent to the (justified) banning of Nazi imagery in countries like Germany, Austria, Norway, Australia, etc.
No one is harmed by a piece of paper or cloth with a symbol on it, but harm happens because of the symbol's implications.
"Authorized" AI-generated or illustrated depictions of CSAM validate the sexualization of children in general, and should not be permitted, in my opinion. If it enables real CSAM to continue, then AI-generated content is not victimless, and therefore I don't think these hypothetical individuals going to prison for it are necessarily innocent.
It's not the specific thing being made illegal, it's the underlying philosophy of "Better a dozen innocent men go to prison than one guilty man go free" I'm arguing against here. Most western justice systems operate under a principle of requiring guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is doubt then guilt cannot be considered proven and the person is not convicted.
The comment I'm responding to is proposing a situation where non-AI-generated images are illegal but AI-generated ones aren't, and that there's no way to tell the difference just by looking at the image itself. In that situation you couldn't convict someone merely based on the existence of the image because it could have been AI-generated. That's fundamental to the "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" philosophy I'm talking about, to do otherwise would mean that innocent people could very easily be convicted of crimes they didn't do.
I guess we disagree on the criteria for innocent. I don't see possession of such images as an innocent act, especially now that it is impossible to verify what is real or fake.
We aren't disagreeing because that's not what I was addressing in the first place. The comment I'm responding to, from Dave, reads:
Emphasis added. The premise of the scenario is that possession of such images (ie, AI-generated CSAM) is not illegal. Given that, for purposes of argument, it follows that this would indeed be a valid defense. You'd need to prove in court that the CSAM pictures that you're charging someone with possessing are not AI-generated, in that scenario.
If you want to have a wider discussion of whether AI-generated CSAM images should be illegal, that's a separate matter.
this is the real problem.
AI can compose novel looking things from components it has been trained on - it can't imagine new concepts. If CSAM is being generated it's because it was included in it's training set which is highly suspected as we know the common corpus had CSAM in it: https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/news/investigation-finds-ai-image-generation-models-trained-child-abuse
If it has images of construction equipment and houses, it can make images of houses that look like construction equipment. Swap out vocabulary as needed.
Cool, how would it know what a naked young person looks like? Naked adults look significantly different.
It understands young and old.
Is a kid just a 60% reduction by volume of an adult? And these are generative algorithms... nobody really understands how it perceives the world and word relations.
It understands young and old. That means it knows a kid is not just a 60% reduction by volume of an adult.
We know it understands these sorts of things because of the very things this whole kerfuffle is about - it's able to generate images of things that weren't explicitly in its training set.
But it doesn't fully understand young and "naked young person" isn't just a scaled down "naked adult". There are physiological changes that people go through during puberty which is why the "It understands young vs. old" is a clearly vapid and low effort comment. Yours has more meaning behind it so I'd clarify that just being able to have a vague understanding of young and old doesn't mean it can generate CSAM.
Do you actually know that, or are you just assuming it?
Personally, I'm basing my assertions off of experience with related situations, where I've asked image AIs to generate images of things that I'm quite sure weren't in its training set and that require conceptual understanding to create "hybrids." It's done a decent job of those so I'm assuming that it can figure out this specific situation as well, since most of these models have a lot of examples of naked people and young people in their training sets. But I haven't actually asked any AIs to generate images of naked young people to test this one specific case.
My opinion here is that "naked young person" isn't as simple as other compound concepts because there are physiological changes we go through during puberty that an AI can't reverse engineer. Something like "Italian samurai" involves concepts that occur at a surface level that it can easily understand while "naked young person" involves some components that can't be derived simply from applying "young" to "naked person" or "naked" to "young person".
Someone did have a valid counter argument in this subthread though: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/11713795
Well, I haven't gone to any of my image AIs and actually asked them to generate naked pictures of young people. So unless you want to go there this will necessarily involve some degree of theoretical elements.
However, according to the article it's possible to generate this stuff with Stable Diffusion models, and Stable Diffusion models have a negligible amount of CSAM in the training set. So short of actually doing the experiment that would seem to settle it.
I think a lot of people don't appreciate just how surprisingly sophisticated the "world model" that these image AIs have learned is. There was a paper a while back where some researchers were trying to analyze how image generators were working internally, and they discovered that if you were to for example ask one to make a picture of a bicycle it will first come up with a depth map of the image before it starts doing anything to the visual output. That shows that the AI has figured out what the three-dimensional form of a bicycle is based entirely on a pile of two-dimensional training images, with no other clues telling it that the third dimension even exists in the first place.
Just go ask a model to show you, with legal subject matter
Very, very good point. Depending on the answer, I retract the "victimless" narrative.
I'm fine with it just being illegal, but realistically you could just ban the transmission and distribution of it and then you cover enforceable scenarios. You can police someone sending or posting that stuff, it's probably next to impossible to police someone generating it at home.
Agreed. And props for making a point that isn't palatable. The first one is complicated. Not many folk I talk to can set aside their revulsion and consider the situation logically. I wish we didn't have to in the first place.
It's interesting your bring this up. Not long ago I was having basically this exact same discussion with my brother. Baring you second point, I honestly don't know how I feel.
On the one hand - if it's strictly images for himself and it DOES dissuade seeking out real CSAM (I'm not convinced of this) then I don't really see the issue.
On the other hand - I feel like it could be a gateway to something more (your second point). Kinda like a drug, right? You need a heavier and heavier hit to keep the same high. Seems like it wouldn't be a stretch to go from AI generated imagery to actual CSAM.
But yeah, I don't know. We live in an odd time for sure.
You mean like marijuana and violent video games?
Except in the case of pornography, it's an open question if viewing it has a net increase or decrease in sexual desire.
With legal pornography, it's typically correlated with higher sexual desire. This tracks intuitively, since the existence of pornography does not typically seem to line up with a drop in people looking for romantic partners.
There's little reason to believe it works the other way around for people attracted to children.
What's unknown is if that desire is enough to outweigh the legal consequences they're aware of, or any social or ethical boundaries present.
Studies have been done, but finding people outside of the legal system who abuse children is exceptionally difficult, even before the ethical obligation to report them to the police would trash the study.
So the studies end up focusing either on people actively seeking treatment for unwanted impulses (less likely to show a correlation), or people engaged with the legal system in some capacity (more likely to show correlation).
Holy strawman, Batman! Just because someone uses the term "gateway" doesn't mean they think that games and weed are going to turn all people and frogs gay and violent.
First off, this is obviously a sticky topic. Every conversation is controversial and speculative.
Second, I don't really see a lot of legitimacy to the "gateway" concept. The vast majority of people use some variety of drug (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine), and that doesn't really reliably predict "harder" drug use. Lots of people use marijuana and that doesn't reliably predict hard drug use. Obviously, the people who use heroin and meth have probably used cocaine and ketamine, and weed before that, and alcohol/caffeine/nicotine before that, but that's not really a "gateway" pipeline so much as paying through finer and finer filters. As far as I know, the concept has fallen pretty heavily out of favor with serious researchers.
In light of that perspective, I think you have to consider the goal. Is your goal to punish people, or to reduce the number and severity of victims? Mine is the latter. Personally, I think this sort of thing peels off many more low-level offenders to low-effort outlets than it emboldens to higher-severity outlets. I think this is ultimately a mental-health problem, and zero-tolerance mandatory reporting (while well-meaning) does more harm than good.
I'd rather that those with these kinds of mental issues have 1. the tools to take the edge off in victimless ways 2. safe spaces to discuss these inclinations without fear of incarceration. I think blockading those avenues yields a net increase the number and severity of victims.
This seems like a net benefit, reducing the overall number and severity of actual victims.
Thanks for being honest and well-meaning. Sorry you're getting downvoted, we both said pretty much exactly the same thing! A difficult subject, but important to get right...