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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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
That right there seems like a great reason to ban ai-geneated CSAM, because that shit is never okay no matter what.
It should probably be illegal, but the rational here isn't great. Something shouldn't be made illegal just because it makes a detective's job more difficult.
One way around it is we might see legislation require AI watermark generated images. If you have CSAM that isnt watermarked you used software thats against law, or its real CSAM unless you can somehow prove otherwise. If you prove its AI, hit them with the illegal software charge assuming they didnt do any of the other illegal things that can be done with the content (e.g uploading it somewhere)
A watermark law seems like its going to happen.
Edit: and some are starting to watermark of their own choice. Claude is altering text output to make it identifiable, they claim without altering the meaning or intention of its output.
I think AI images should be watermarked, but this would just lead people to watermarking their CSAM and detectives putting no effort into determining if the watermark was added by a person or a program. All the sudden a hard drive full of CSAM looks legal because they slapped a filter on it. AI generated CSAM should be illegal, like all CSAM.
Writing one of these is a weekend project for any seasoned developer.
Any idea that you can make software illegal ignores the reality that the code itself is free speech.
Wouldn't this be more like, writing a computer virus is legal, but using the virus isn't?
Yeah that's almost exactly what the judge ruled. Possession is legal but production and distribution are illegal. You could have the code to a virus, but no you can't write one.
I don't 100% follow the judge's logic, but it's a simple parallel.
I think distribution is actually a stronger claim. There is a lot of precedence on distribution of things that are otherwise covered under free speech.
I'm not sure who could claim standing.
It would be a criminal case, no one would have to have standing to sue.
That honestly makes absolutely zero sense...
Transmitting it is illegal.
If creating it is illegal (e.g hand drawn), it is impossible to possess it, and not have transmitted it. Either you created it, or transmitted it, and while maybe they can't prove one or the other, you broke a law?
Yes, but they have to prove it in court. I don't think it really makes sense as is, and the laws should be changed.
Sometimes the law is really fucking bizarre hah.
The world progresses faster than any bureaucratic entity.
There was a trend a while back showing ancient laws still technically in effect that don't make any sense at all in a modern world.
Like this argument saying the laws [as they exist] may become impossible to enforce, it's saying that the world has changed too much for the way we handle this.
Which of course laws from 10/20/50/100 years ago may not be able to apply in a useful manner to AI technology that is massively rapidly advancing beyond our ability to control or even understand what's even all possible with it as it evolves.
That part of what this POS wrote shouldn't be particularly news to anyone or even controversial.
THAT part shouldn't....
This will stand until the first wave of child rapes and sexual assaults happen wherein the cops find huge amounts of the ai-created child porn in the perpetrators computers.
The prurient interest angle of the images an will then be unavoidable as an enticement and incitement to the assaults and it will be banned.
Unfortunately, the law has to see actionable harm FIRST from something before it can be banned.
Just give it time, as you notice the language the judge used - the "compelling interest" the government has - they know that it should ne illegal, but have to wait until the balance of content is ai-generated and the predators come out to play.
It absolutely sucks to have to unfold this way.
The interesting part of this is you can't have good discussions on the different aspects because any leniency towards the broader parts of prejudging something that doesn't exist yet means people will jump on you as supporting the current topic. And the danger later if and when such things develop into actual incidents is some level of Patriot Act where everyone says "we told you so" and approve blanket laws that supposedly take care of that problem, but also affect totally not connected things.
It's been something talked about in the tech world for a long time, how slow government is to react to changes in technology, and the gap widens as things speed along. Meanwhile we still aren't talking about things like AI safety and how to regress some of the damage done by how LLMs were developed ILLEGALLY. Rather than trying to be ahead of the curve (if that's even possible at this point) the laws will be late and draconian to appease the loud crowds.
I fear it's more likely that the silent majority of this culture has turned out to be pedophiles and this is the subtle ground work for their inevitable legalization of child rape.
That will likely not happen. The greater risk to the billioinaires is to high.
All it takes is for one father to catch a member of the Epstein Class touching his kid and the rich pervert gets beat to death and the father gets away with it (as they usually do in these cases) then people will start to realize they should just pre-emptively go after the lot.
The magats are so well brainwashed that some have even said it would be an honor for trump to touch their daughters. They may be a minority, but the slow creap that we've all watched without stopping could eventually push us to that end. Sure we wouldn't tolerate it now, but 10 years ago we wouldn't tolerate a convicted felon as president and 20 years ago we'd have collectivly linched the guy that Nazi salutes at an official government function.
Those are men that are already fucking their own. That shit is real and the conservatives are more into it than people realize.
Honestly I'm genuinely looking for a proper therapist at this point because I can't stop seeing the pattern. Guestimating off the current statistics and being conservative with the numbers, 1 in 13 Americans were molested as a kid or are currently being molested. Its in our music, our movies, our art, our comedy. It's been consistently ignored for generations.
As a victim myself, I came to terms with it on the understanding that I was a rare case and the fact that so many of my friends were also victims was coincidental or proof that I give off a comforting aura or something. Instead it's looking more and more like the minority are the people who make it through life unscathed...
This is the number one compelling argument for me. Largely, I feel passionately about having uncensored models for a variety of reasons not salient to the thread, but I draw a line when it protects abusers. That boundary trumps other considerations for me.