this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
280 points (97.9% liked)

World News

39913 readers
3450 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A sex offender convicted of making more than 1,000 indecent images of children has been banned from using any “AI creating tools” for the next five years in the first known case of its kind.

Anthony Dover, 48, was ordered by a UK court “not to use, visit or access” artificial intelligence generation tools without the prior permission of police as a condition of a sexual harm prevention order imposed in February.

The ban prohibits him from using tools such as text-to-image generators, which can make lifelike pictures based on a written command, and “nudifying” websites used to make explicit “deepfakes”.

Dover, who was given a community order and £200 fine, has also been explicitly ordered not to use Stable Diffusion software, which has reportedly been exploited by paedophiles to create hyper-realistic child sexual abuse material, according to records from a sentencing hearing at Poole magistrates court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (14 children)

For reference, the comment I made was improperly displayed, and I thought I replied to the wrong person. It said:

Hi, I'm a mathematician that's been following the development of generative neural networks for about a decade or more.

You're wrong. Your knowledge of the inner workings of these AI is accurate, but somehow you've reached an incorrect conclusion. I sometimes run a local instance of Stable Diffusion on my home PC, and it can make things that have never existed look totally unlike anything it's ever seen, and yet match certain specifications in principle.

I don't use it to generate porn, so I can't speak to the difficulties in avoiding csam while doing so. Mostly I generate is paintings in the style of Van Gogh, and it does a remarkable job of doing so, even when I can't get it to do what I want. For example: it generated a painting of him in profile wearing armor when I asked for a weapon. I don't think Van Gogh ever painted himself in profile, and he certainly never did so in armor. And yet the model was capable of imagining what this human-like figure so closely associated with the artist style "Van Gogh" would look like in profile because it knew what humans tend to look like in profile, and it could conceptualize how the features would present themselves. I'm certain that an AI can imagine a convincing image of simulated csam without ever having seen it, because these models really are just that good at imagining new things.

[–] PotatoKat 2 points 9 months ago (13 children)

Has your model seen humans in a profile view? Has it seen armor? Has it seen Van Gogh style paintings? If yes then it can create a combo of those things.

For CSAM it needs to know what porn looks like, what a child looks like and what a naked pubescent body looks like to create it. It didn't make your van Gogh painting from nothing it had an idea of what those things were.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Yea, specifically, the model shouldn't have had access to a significant training set on naked prepubescent bodies - that's been my main objection in this thread.

[–] PotatoKat 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Except you can't know that. CSAM has been found in training data already and as long as they pull from social media they will continue to be trained with more.

https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/news/investigation-finds-ai-image-generation-models-trained-child-abuse

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Awesome link, I'll share it up thread where someone was asking for it. Yea, it's something that's hard to prove since models aren't upfront with how they're sourcing their data.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)