this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
260 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

63662 readers
5532 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Even in cases when the content is fully artificial and there is no real victim depicted, such as Operation Cumberland, AI-generated CSAM still contributes to the objectification and sexualisation of children.

I get how fucking creepy and downright sickening this all feels, but I'm genuinely surprised that it's illegal or criminal if there's no actual children involved.

It mentions sexual extortion and that's definitely something that should be illegal, same for spreading AI generated explicit stuff about real people without their concent, involving children or adults, but idk about the case mentioned here.

[–] HappySkullsplitter 20 points 2 days ago

It's certainly creepy and disgusting

It also seems like we're half a step away from thought police regulating any thought or expression a person has that those in power do not like

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

Exactly. If there's no victim, there's no crime.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It would depend on the country. In the UK even drawn depictions are illegal. I assume it has to at least be realistic and stick figures don't count.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It sounds like a very iffy thing to police. Since drawn stuff doesn't have actual age, how do you determine it? Looks? Wouldn't be great.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

Imagine having to argue to a jury that a wolf-human hybrid with bright neon fur is underage because it isn’t similar enough to a wolf for dog years to apply.

[–] jacksilver 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I mean that's the same thing with AI generated content. It's all trained on a wide range of real people, how do you know what's generated isn't depicting an underage person, which is why laws like this are really dangerous.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Exactly. Any time there's subjectivity, it's ripe for abuse.

The law should punish:

  • creating images of actual underage people
  • creating images of actual non-consenting people of legal age
  • knowingly distributing one of the above

Each of those has a clearly identifiable victim. Creating a new work of a fictitious person doesn't have any clearly identifiable victim.

Don't make laws to make prosecution easier, make laws to protect actual people from becoming victims or at least punish those who victimize others.