this post was submitted on 22 May 2024
295 points (96.8% liked)

News

23310 readers
3443 users here now

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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago (4 children)

The problem is that it abets the distribution of legitimate CSAM more easily. If a government declares "these types of images are okay if they're fake", you've given probable deniability to real CSAM distributors who can now claim that the material is AI generated, placing the burden on the legal system to prove it to the contrary. The end result will be a lot of real material flying under the radar because of weak evidence, and continued abuse of children.

Better to just blanket ban the entire concept and save us all the trouble, in my opinion. Back before it was so easy to generate photorealistic images, it was easier to overlook victimless CP because illustrations are easy to tell apart from reality, but times have changed, and so should the laws.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Not necessarily. There's been a lot of advances in watermarking AI outputs.

As well, there's the opposite argument.

Right now, pedophile rings have very high price points to access CSAM or require users to upload original CSAM content, adding a significant motivator to actually harm children.

The same way rule 34 artists were very upset with AI being able to create what they were getting commissions to create, AI generated CSAM would be a significant dilution of the market.

Is the average user really going to risk prison, pay a huge amount of money or harm a child with an even greater prison risk when effectively identical material is available for free?

Pretty much overnight the CSAM dark markets would lose the vast majority of their market value and the only remaining offerings would be ones that could demonstrate they weren't artificial to justify the higher price point, which would undermine the notion of plausible deniability.

Legalization of AI generated CSAM would decimate the existing CSAM markets.

That said, the real question that needs to be answered from a social responsibility perspective is what the net effect of CSAM access by pedophiles has on their proclivity to offend. If there's a negative effect then it's an open and shut case that it should be legalized. If it's a positive effect than we should probably keep it very much illegal, even if that continues to enable dark markets for the real thing.

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Not necessarily. There’s been a lot of advances in watermarking AI outputs.

That presumes that the image generation is being done by some corporation or government entity that adds the watermarks to AI outputs and doesn't add them to non-AI outputs. I'm not thrilled that AI of this sort exists at all, but given that it does, I'd rather not have it controlled by such entities. We're heading towards a world where we can all run that stuff on our own computers and control the watermarks ourselves. Is that good or bad? Probably bad, but having it under the exclusive control of megacorps has to be even worse.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

How about any photo realistic image without a watermark is illegal? And the watermark kind of has to be traced back to author so you can’t just add it to real CP?

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you can generate the watermarks, you can put them on non-AI images.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well the watermark would be a kind of signature that leads back to a registered artist.

I think it makes sense to enforce this for all AI art, basically label it in a way that can be traced back to who produced it.

And if you don’t want people to know you produced it, then you probably shouldn’t share it

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sorry but the concept of a "registered artist" sounds dystopian.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It would be for using AI, not creating art.

I’m just brainstorming here, but I can’t imagine how you would control AI art without some sort of regulation or licensing on the side of the AI creator…

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

You're quite correct your thinking it seems unrealistic to actually detect AI generated imagery after the fact so the only fill solution would be a trusted chain of custody - it wouldn't necessarily need a centralized authority but it would require some highly trusted issuers of trust and, unfortunately, trust in media is currently at an all time low and those companies are in the best position to serve as those issuers.

This is a very complicated problem and we need a social (rather than a technical) solution.

[–] HereToLurk@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Is the average user really going to risk prison, pay a huge amount of money or harm a child with an even greater prison risk when effectively identical material is available for free?

Average users aren't pedophiles and it would appear that yes they would considering he did exactly that. He had access to tools that generated the material for free, which he then used to entice boys.

[–] eating3645@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

I agree, just the linguistics are interesting.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Better to just blanket ban the entire concept and save us all the trouble, in my opinion.

That’s the issue though, blindly banning things that can be victimless crimes never ends, like prohibition.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well, you don't hear many people decrying the places that already have. Canada many US states, parts of Europe too have outlawed sexual imagery of children, real or fake.

I am just proposing that that should be the standard approach going forward, for the sole fact that the fake stuff is identical to the real stuff and real stuff can be used to make more convincing "fake" stuff.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Isn’t Canada’s law based on age and not if they “look like children”, so all they have to say is that the subject isn’t human and is over 18 years of age?

My entire point was that things like this become a game of wack o mole.

I don’t think that’s a good standard, reminds me of 0 tolerance policies and war on drugs.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

placing the burden on the legal system to prove it to the contrary.

That's how it should be. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Right, but what I am suggesting is that laws should be worded to criminalize any sexualized depiction of children, not just ones with a real victim. It is no longer as simple to prove a photograph or video is actual CSAM with a real victim, making it easier for real abuse to avoid detection.

[–] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This same "think about the children" -argument is used when advocating for stuff such as banning encryption aswell which in it's current form enables the easy spreading of such content AI generated or not. I do not agree with that. It's a slippery slope despite the good intentions. We're not criminalizing fictional depictions of violence either. I don't see how this is any different. I don't care what people are jerking off to as long as they're not hurting anyone and I don't think you should either. Banning it haven't gotten rid of actual CSAM content and it sure wont work for AI generated stuff either. No one benefits from the police running after people creating/sharing fictional content.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

I think you're painting a false equivalency. This isn't about surveillance or incitement or any other pre-crime hypotheticals, but simply adjusting what material is considered infringing in light of new developments which can prevent justice from being carried out on actual cases of abuse.

How do you prove what is fictional versus what is real? Unless there is some way to determine with near 100% certainty that a given image or video is AI generated and not real, or even that an AI generated image wasn't trained on real images of abuse, you invite scenarios where real images of abuse get passed off as "fictional content" and make it easier for predators to victimize more children.