Technology

59430 readers

3089 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

543

UK Trial: Pornhub's Chatbot Halts Millions from Accessing Child Abuse Content (www.wired.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/technology

246 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A trial program conducted by Pornhub in collaboration with UK-based child protection organizations aimed to deter users from searching for child abuse material (CSAM) on its website. Whenever CSAM-related terms were searched, a warning message and a chatbot appeared, directing users to support services. The trial reported a significant reduction in CSAM searches and an increase in users seeking help. Despite some limitations in data and complexity, the chatbot showed promise in deterring illegal behavior online. While the trial has ended, the chatbot and warnings remain active on Pornhub's UK site, with hopes for similar measures across other platforms to create a safer internet environment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] Clbull -6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's surprising to see Aylo (formerly Mindgeek) coming out with the most ethical use of AI chatbots, especially when Google Gemini cannot even condemn pedophilia.

[–] tjsauce 15 points 8 months ago (3 children)

In the link you shared, Gemini gave a nuanced answer. What would you rather it say?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

I think one of the main issues is the matter of fact usage of the term Minor Attracted Person. It's a controversial term that phrases pedophiles like an identity, like saying Person Of Color.

I understand wanting a not as judgemental term for those who did no wrong and are seeking help. But it should be phrased as anything else of that nature, a disorder.

If I was making a term that fit that description I'd probably say Minor Attraction Disorder heavily implying that the person is not ok as is and needs professional help.

In a more general sense, it feels like the similar apologetic arguments that the dark side of reddit would make. And that's probably because Google's officially using Reddit as training data.

[+] Sandbag -10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Are you defending pedophilia? This is a honest question because you are saying it gave a nuanced answer when we all, should, know that it's horribly wrong and awful.

[–] tjsauce 8 points 8 months ago

Abusing a child is wrong. Feeling the urge to do so doesn't make someone evil, so long as they recognize it's wrong to do so. The best way to stop kids from being abused is to teach why it is wrong and help those with the urges to manage them. Calling people evil detracts from that goal.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

What you are thinking about is child abuse. A pedophile is not bound to bcome an abuser.

[–] Gabu 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

when we all, should, know that it’s horribly wrong and awful. [sic, the word "should" shouldn't be between commas]

This assumes two things:

Some kind of universal, inherent and self evident morality; None of these things are true, as evidence by the fact most people do believe murder is wrong, yet there are wars, events entirely dedicated to murdering people. People do need to be told something wrong is wrong in order to know so. Maybe some of these people were never exposed to the moral consensus or, worse yet, were victims themselves and as a result developed a distorted sense of morality;
Not necessarily all, but some of these divergents are actually mentally ill - their "inclination" isn't a choice any more than being schizofrenic or homosexual† would be. That isn't a defense to their actions, but a recognition that without social backing and help, they could probably never overcome their nature.

† This is not an implication that homosexuality is in any way, or should in any way, be classified as a mental illness. It's an example of a primary individual characteristic not derived from choice.