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

Technology

63615 readers
4112 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
L3s
enu
technopagan
L4s
260
25 arrested in global hit against AI-generated child sexual abuse material (www.europol.europa.eu)
submitted 2 days ago by General_Effort to c/technology
88 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 day ago (5 children)

I'm afraid Europol is shooting themselves in the foot here.

What should be done is better ways to mark and identify AI-generated content, not a carpet ban and criminalization.

Let whoever happens to crave CSAM (remember: sexuality, however perverted or terrible it is, is not a choice) use the most harmless outlet - otherwise, they may just turn to the real materials, and as continuous investigations suggest, there's no shortage of supply or demand on that front. If everything is illegal, and some of that is needed anyway, it's easier to escalate, and that's dangerous.

As sickening as it may sound to us, these people often need something, or else things are quickly gonna go downhill. Give them their drawings.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

What would stop someone from creating a tool that tagged real images as AI generated?

Have at it with drawings that are easily distinguished, but if anything is photorealistic I feel like it needs to be treated as real.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Some form of digital signatures for allowed services?

Sure, it will limit the choice of where to legally generate content, but it should work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I highly doubt any commercially available service is going to get in on officially generating photorealistic CSAM.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago

Open-source models exist and can be forked

[–] drmoose 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This relies on the idea that "outlet" is not harmful. It might be encouraging even but who do you think even would ever study this to help us know here. Can you imagine the scientists who'd have to be leading studies like this - incredibly grim and difficult subject with high likelihood that no one would listen to you anyway.

[–] aidan 2 points 20 hours ago

IIRC there was actually a study and pedos with access to synthetic CSAM were less likely to victimize real children.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can download the models and compile them yourself, that will be as effective as the US government was at banning encryption.

[–] aidan 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I hope they don't have access to a cloud computing provider somewhere, otherwise this is going to be a tough thing to enforce without a great firewall larger than China has.

It will be hilarious to see them attempt it though.

[–] aidan 1 points 19 hours ago

Sadly it seems like most of Europe and potentially other "western" countries will follow

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I totally agree with these guys being arrested. I want to get that out of the way first.

But what crime did they commit? They didn't abuse children...they are AI generated and do not exist. What they did is obviously disgusting and makes me want to punch them in the face repeatedly until it's flat, but where's the line here? If they draw pictures of non-existent children is that also a crime?

Does that open artists to the interpretation of the law when it comes to art? Can they be put in prison because they did a professional painting of a child? Like what if they did a painting of their own child in the bath or something? Sure the contents questionable but it's not exactly predatory. And if you add safeguards for these people could then not the predators just claim artistic expression?

It just seems entirely unenforceable and an entire goddamn can of worms...

[–] billwashere 2 points 17 hours ago

First off I’ll say this topic is very nuanced. And as sick as any child porn is I completely agree. This, in my gut, feels like a weird slippery slope that will somehow get used against any AI generated images or possibly any AI generated content. It makes me feel like those “online child protection” bills that seem on the surface like not terrible ideas, but when you start thinking about them in detail are horrific dystopian ideas.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I actually do not agree with them being arrested.

While I recognize the issue of identification posed in the article, I hold a strong opinion it should be tackled in another way.

AI-generated CSAM might be a powerful tool to reduce demand for the content featuring real children. If we leave it legal to watch and produce, and keep the actual materials illegal, we can make more pedophiles turn to what is less harmful and impactful - a computer-generated image that was produced with no children being harmed.

By introducing actions against AI-generated materials, they make such materials as illegal as the real thing, and there's one less reason for an interested party not to go to a CSAM site and watch actual children getting abused, perpetuating the cycle and leading to more real-world victims.

[–] drmoose 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Nah the argument that this could grow "pedophile culture" and even encourage real activities is really not that far fetched and could be even true. Without very convincing studies do you take a chance where real kids could soon suffer? And I mean the studies would have to be really convincing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago

The thing is, banning is also a consequential action.

And based on what we know about similar behaviors, having an outlet is likely to be good.

Here, the EU takes an approach of "banning just in case" while also ignoring the potential implications of such bans.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

It's strange to me that it is referred to as CSAM. No people are involved so no one is a being sexually assaulted. It's creepy but calling it that implies a drawing is a person to me.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

Exactly, which is why I'm against your first line, I don't want them arrested specifically because of artistic expression. I think they're absolutely disgusting and should stop, but they're not harming anyone so they shouldn't go to jail.

In my opinion, you should only go to jail if there's an actual victim. Who exactly is the victim here?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] badbytes 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If an underage AI character, is portrayed in say a movie or games, is that wrong? Seems like a very slippery slope.

[–] General_Effort 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

There have been controversies about that sort of thing.

I know the Oscar-winning movie The Tin Drum as an example. The book by Günter Grass is a very serious, highly celebrated piece of German post-war literature. It takes place around WW2. The protagonist has the mind of an adult in the body of a child. I guess the idea is that he is the other way around from most people?

The movie was banned in Ontario and Oklahoma, for a time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tin_Drum_(film)#Censorship

With European societies shifting right, I doubt such a movie could be made today, but we aren't at a point where it would be outright illegal.

[–] badbytes 1 points 21 hours ago

Good to have data points as reference points to at least guide the discussion.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 2 days ago (7 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 1 day ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 day ago (40 children)

Not going to read the article, but I will say that I understand making hyper-realistic fictional CP illegal, because it would make limiting actual CP impossible.

As long as it’s clearly fictional though, let people get off to whatever imaginary stuff they want to. We might find it disgusting, but there are plenty of sexual genres that most people would find disgusting b yet shouldn’t be illegal.

load more comments (40 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›