It’s a picture of a hallucination of a tree. Distinguishing real from unreal ought to be taken more seriously given the direction technology is moving.
Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges
PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 5 months agoBecause they are images of children being graphically raped, a form of abuse.
Leg@lemmy.world 5 months ago
PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It’s a picture of a hallucination of a tree
So yes, it’s a tree. It’s a tree that might not exist, but it’s still a picture of a tree.
You can’t have an image of a child being raped – regardless of if that child exists or not – that is not CSAM because it’s an image of a child being sexually abused.
Distinguishing real from unreal ought to be taken more seriously given the direction technology is moving.
Okay, so who are you volunteering to go through an endless stream of images and videos of children being raped to verify that each one has been generated by an AI and not a scumbag with a camera? Peados?
Why are neckbeards so enthusiastic about dying on this hill? They seem more upset that there’s something they’re not allowed to jerk off to than by the actual abuse of children.
Functionally, legalising AI generated CSAM means legalising “genuine” CSAM because it will be impossible to distinguish the two, especially as paedophiles dump their pre-AI collections or feed them in as training data.
People who do this are reprehensible, no matter what hair splitting and semantic gymnastics they employ.
Leg@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Hey man, I’m not the one. I’m literally just saying that the images that AI creates are not real. If you’re going to argue that they are, you’re simply wrong. Should these ones be generated? Obviously I’d prefer that they not be. But they’re still effectively fabrications that I’m better off simply not knowing about.
If you want to get into the weeds and discuss the logistics of enforcing what is essentially thought crime, that is a different discussion I’m frankly not savvy enough to have here. I have no control over the ultimate outcome, but for what it’s worth, my money says thought crime will in fact become a punishable offense within our lifetimes, and this may well be an easy catalyst to use to that end. This should put your mind at ease.
PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The thread is about “how are they abuse images if no abuse took place” and the answer is “because they’re images of abuse”. I haven’t claimed they’re real at any point.
It’s not a thought crime because it’s not a thought. Nobody is being charged for thinking about raping children, they’re being charged for creating images of children being raped.
Daxtron2@startrek.website 5 months ago
No it isn’t, not anymore than a drawing of a car is a real car, or drawings of money are reap money.
PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Material showing a child being sexually abused is child sexual abuse material.
Daxtron2@startrek.website 5 months ago
And an AI generated image does not show a child being abused
PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Bullshit and you know it.
h3mlocke@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Oops you forgot to use logic. As per the comment you’re replying to, the more apt analogy would be: is an AI generated picture of a car still a picture of a car.
Daxtron2@startrek.website 5 months ago
That has nothing to do with logic? Its pointing out that both drawings and AI gens are not really the things they might depict
laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Nobody is saying they’re real, and I now see what you’re saying.
By your answers, your question is more “at-face-value” than people assume:
You are asking:
“Did violence occur in real life in order to produce this violent picture?”
The answer is, of course, no.
But people are interpreting it as:
“This is a picture of a man being stoned to death. Is this picture violent, if no violence took place in real life?”
To which answer is, yes.
Daxtron2@startrek.website 5 months ago
It can be abhorrent and unlikable, its still not abuse
laughterlaughter@lemmy.world 5 months ago
We’re not disagreeing.
The question was:
“Is this an abuse image if it was generated?”
Yes, it is an abuse image.
Is it actual abuse? Of course not.
h3mlocke@lemm.ee 5 months ago
No genius it’s just promoting abuse. Have a good day.