laughterlaughter
@laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
🤷♂️
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
Sorry, yes, I was referring to what you originally said (I thought it was another commenter.)
Well, the same thing I can say about your argument conclusions and the same “muddying the water” opinion.
Your stance is “banning this X type of content will help cure Y,” and I’d like to see the science backing this up. That is all. I’m not defending pedophilia if that’s what you’re implying with “muddying the waters.” It’s just that I’m all for evidence, even if the evidence makes us (yes, me included) uncomfortable.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
I know the difference.
I’ve used “OP” to refer to a parent poster (or commenter) for decades, on Slashdot, Digg, Reddit and now here. I won’t change it unless there’s a major shift in the community.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
Well, that’s another story. I just answered your question. “Are these images about abuse even if they’re generated?” Yup, they are.
“Should people be prosecuted because of them?” Welp, someone with more expertise should answer this. Not me.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
No, they’re violent films.
Snuff is a different thing, because it’s supposed to be real. Snuff films depict violence in a very real sense. So so they’re violent. Fiction films also depict violence. And so they’re violent too. It’s just that they’re not about real violence.
I guess what you’re really trying to say is that “Generated abuse images are not real abuse images.” I agree with that.
But at face value, “Generated abuse images are not abuse images” is incorrect.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
We don’t disagree. But your argument is different from the OP. Your argument is “these images are horrible. Let’s wipe them out of the face of Earth because they’re wrong.”
But OP practically said “not having access to these images will help people ‘cure’ their paraphilia.” I don’t think that has any scientific basis, though I’ll be happy to stand corrected.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 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.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 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.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
Except that it is an animal abuse image, drawing, painting, fiddle, whatever you want to call it. It’s still the depiction of animal abuse.
Same with child abuse, rape, torture, killing or beating.
Now, I know what you mean by your question. You’re trying to establish that the image/drawing/painting/scribble is harmless because no actual living being suffering happened. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t depict it.
Again, I’m seeing this from a very practical point of view. However you see these images through the lens of your own morals or points of view, that’s a totally different thing.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
Your second sentence is exactly what I was thinking of. The big issue with pedophilia is the fact that kids can be easily manipulated (or forced!) to do heinous acts. Otherwise, what’s the difference with regular porn and topics about prisoners, slavery, necrophilia, etc? Would we say that people who consume rape fantasy porn will go out and rape? If a dude who is sexually attracted to women is not raping women left and right every day all year round, you know, because he knows it’s wrong, if we’re not labeling every heterosexual male as creeps, then why would this be different with other kinds of attractions?
But anyway. I’m not saying anything that hasn’t been discussed in the past (I’m sure.) I’m just glad I don’t have that condition (or anything similar, like attracted to volcanoes), otherwise life would definitely suck.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
I don’t condone child sexual abuse, and I’m definitely not a pedo (gosh, I can’t believe I have to state this.)
But how does banning AI generated material help combating a mental illness? The mental illness will still be there, with or without images…
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
You just summarized the ongoing ethical concerns experts and common folk alike have been talking about in the past few years.
- Comment on US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges 5 months ago:
I mean… regardless of your moral point of view, you should be able to answer that yourself. Here’s an analogy: suppose I draw a picture of a man murdering a dog. It’s an animal abuse image, even though no actual animal abuse took place.
- Comment on Valve has little to worry about as new Steam Deck rival arrives 5 months ago:
Especially for gaming!!!
- Comment on It's Time to Bring Back the Steam Machine 5 months ago:
Or it’s high seas.
It’s always the high seas.