9 ms·

Eventually this and similar technology will be able to generate unlimited porn of all types. Including CP. Should or even could it be made illegal? To me that

• ignoramous 4y ago
  Unfortunately, don't think folks watching CP would stop at that. Porn is an addiction (or compulsion?) and I don't see how CP makes it any better for folks with pedophilic tendencies. To think that porn reduces sexual tendencies may be true (in the short to mid term), but eventually, as the addiction intensifies, those hooked have the urge to seek more novel, more aggressive versions of it (in reel or for real). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography#Sexual_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography#Sexual_...
  • komali2 4y ago
    I wish people would explain why they're downvoting these ethics-related comments so aggressively, because I'm interested in these conversations and not sure why other users find them irrelevant.
    • pid-1 4y ago
      Developers like pretending technology is always good and/or inevitable, I think this sort of question is uncomfortable to many folks.
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      The GP comment made largely unsupported fact claims, rather than ethical ones.
    • fragmede 4y ago
      I'd bet that downvoting is a kneejerk response to the claim "porn is an addiction".
      • moomoo11 4y ago
        Anything can be addiction. Hell I got addicted to weed. At first for years it was fine but then I got into some rough patches when the pandemic started and I was blazed all day every day. It was a temporary escape where I could still do my job but beyond that I had zero motivation for months besides getting more weed. Took months to kick the habit, completely.
      • pnt12 4y ago
        Is it knee-jerk? Alcoholism is pretty serious, but you wouldn't say "beer is an addiction". Same with video game addiction and many other things. I find it a pretty prude generalization: it's a catch phrase for people who get offended by sex.
    • psyc 4y ago
      Ethics? Please. It's moral panic. The putatively ethical folks having a "harmless" academic discussion about which nice things everybody is or isn't allowed to have, according to them.
      • Throwaway556655 4y ago
        Now it's clear to me you're not being sarcastic. It's not about morals, I'm all in for you to have access to as much porn as you want, as long it's legal. If that's healthy or not for your mind, that's an entirely different story.
        • psyc 4y ago
          I don't trust you concerned "we live in a society" types any further than I can throw yous. (This is tongue in cheek. I'm not upset.)
    • noduerme 4y ago
      I think it demonstrates why it's so easy for technology to run ahead of ethics. No one wants to hear a public safety announcement when they get the keys to a new car. OTOH, I think the risk of CSAM from this kind of thing is overblown, because either (1) it wouldn't actually involve real children in any way, or (2) the model would have to be train on actual CSAM, which there are already laws against. If no humans are harmed by it at any stage, then how's it any different from the CGI murders all over movies and TV? In the absence of harm, the only reason to consider it a crime is that it's disgusting. But we don't prosecute people for having sick thoughts, just for acting on them. If you take the child and abuse out of the equation, the only argument left is that seeing CSAM (artificial or not) is a "gateway drug" to commiting child abuse. If that's the case then why shouldn't we prosecute people for watching Dexter, on the grounds that they're on their way to becoming serial killers?
      • kbenson 4y ago
        > If no humans are harmed by it at any stage, then how's it any different from the CGI murders all over movies and TV? In the absence of harm, the only reason to consider it a crime is that it's disgusting. But we don't prosecute people for having sick thoughts, just for acting on them. You say that, but created from scratch drawn material is illegal in some countries. What you've stated is a nice ideal but often doesn't match reality, and I'm on the fence as to whether that's a necessarily a bad thing in this case (I'm not sure we really know enough about sexual drive and how it interacts with the subconscious to know whether it's actually benign or has a societal cost).
        • varajelle 4y ago
          > You say that, but created from scratch drawn material is illegal in some countries. Homosexuality is illegal in some countries.
          • kbenson 4y ago
            My point was the last sentence of what I quoted doesn't quite match reality. We do prosecute people for sick thoughts in some of these cases, regardless of whether we should.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • dang 4y ago
      We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32573719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32573719.
    • dang 4y ago
      The guidelines specifically ask you not to post like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. It's completely off-topic and, what's worse, repetitive. It's frustrating not to be able to know the reasons for downvotes, but it's the nature of the beast. Sometimes people think we should require explanations, but you can't change the way people are by demanding they jump through a hoop. If you see unfairly downvoted comments, give them a corrective upvote (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=corrective%20upvote https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Other users will hopefully do that too. A lot of the time, that happens and then posts like this end up as uncollected garbage in the thread, complaining about something that doesn't exist anymore.
      • ignoramous 4y ago
        I've personally noticed that the collective upvotes start right after someone posts "why downvote" rant like gp did.
        • dang 4y ago
          Yes, I'm sure that's a thing too.
  • psyc 4y ago
    Add reefer into the mix, and you've got a recipe for madness.
    • Throwaway556655 4y ago
      I don't know if you're being sarcastic here or not, but I've mixed porn with stimulants and the result is definitely pretty. I've went through 16-hour masturbation sessions and have done things I would havje never imagined. The thoughts still haunt me. Porn addiction is not a joke.
    • whiddershins 4y ago
      It is a terrible idea to compare pedophilia to drug use. One might be a victimless crime. The other never can be.
      • johnny22 4y ago
        perhaps it was just in response to the second part > To think that porn reduces sexual tendencies may be true (in the short to mid term), but eventually, as the addiction intensifies, those hooked have the urge to seek more novel, more aggressive versions of it (in reel or for real). and if so, it's a joke about the reefer madness movie and moral panic
      • psyc 4y ago
        • dang 4y ago
          Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html? You broke quite a few of them here—especially this one: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
  • version_five 4y ago
    Otoh, I have read articles worrying that young men aren't going out looking to meet women like they used to, because they are satisfying their desires though porn.
    • deepdriver 4y ago
      Not at all contradictory. Opioid addicts need higher and higher doses for their fix. In the worst case they too drop out of society, committing crimes such as theft and prostitution to service their addiction.
      • Viliam1234 4y ago
        I agree that people addicted to porn want more porn. The question is whether they also want more real-life sex, or less real-life sex. It seems weird to have simultaneously a moral panic about both options.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • hoseja 4y ago
      Oh no the engine of society is losing fuel to burn through, how awful. How will the necrarchy ever afford their servants if the subjects have dodged the exploitation of their reproductive urge.
      • orestarod 4y ago
        If you fear your reproductive urge is being exploited, I think eradicating the exploitators is a better course of action than withholding having children. There are better reasons not to have children than using it as a way to harm your overlords.
  • 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
    Is that any different from the argument about violent videogames back in the day? Or Dungeons & Dragons before that?
• int_19h 4y ago
  Many countries already ban painted or rendered CP. US did that for a few years, as well, until the Supreme Court struck it down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit... So as far as the output goes, there's already some kind of precedent in most countries. Or are you asking about the model that performs the generation?
  • mgdlbp 4y ago
    What? That's about things that _aren't pornography_. US convicted for written obscenity just in 2013: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/05/20/court-finds-fantasy-stories-obscene/ https://www.techdirt.com/2013/05/20/court-finds-fantasy-stor...
    • int_19h 4y ago
      The Miller test applies to all pornography, not just CP. If you look around, you can find federal cases about "transportation of obscene matters" for adult stuff, e.g.: https://www.networkworld.com/article/2276921/porn-producer-sentenced-to-prison-for-online-distribution.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2276921/porn-producer-s...
• Beltalowda 4y ago
  Watching CP tends to reinforce paedophilic tendencies. Many folks seem to "common sense assume" that it's a safe outlet and it would be nice if that were true, but it's not.
  • radu_floricica 4y ago
    The problem is that you can find common sense arguments both ways. It's just civilization inadequacy that we aren't capable to work on finding objective arguments here, because it doesn't seem like a particularly difficult problem. But yet again, politics is the mind killer.
  • throwaway675309 4y ago
    I hear this repeated verbatim a lot as if it were objectively true, along with the idea that watching porn in general is psychologically unhealthy, but I have yet to see any legitimate peer reviewed studies to corroborate either of these positions.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• nikkwong 4y ago
  The question of whether or not machine generated CP is ethical or not is a confusing one to me, since the crux of problem of CP is that it's violating the rights of a child. If you get rid of that fact, CP becomes a 'victimless crime', in a sense, and it becomes hard to pinpoint what the actual perpetration is. (Ignoring the fact that a CP model has to be trained on real images, which destroys this argument outright, for now). Nobody wants to be a pedophile, but if you are unfortunately hardwired that way the impulses are impossible to ignore—similar to any other sexual impulse that 'healthy' adults have. I think the goal is how to create the least amount of harm for children, and it's theoretically interesting to consider the possibility that machine generated CP could be used to ultimately end the real-life CP black market. I'm sure this won't ever happen because nobody wants to touch this subject with a 10-foot pole; and our species tends to favor solutions that are idealistic rather than rational in many ways. But the European approach to criminal justice is something like: "humans are not perfect, and we can't fix them, so let's try to engineer solutions which make living together more pleasant". Nobody likes an icky solution like this, but the alternative is a lot of children suffering (although I'm not saying those two options are perfectly substitutable). On the other hand, it could be a completely stupid idea outright. Just an interesting thing to think about.
  • girvo 4y ago
    I don’t think you can ignore the fact that the model would have to be trained on child sexual abuse material, though. That’s pretty important.
    • nikkwong 4y ago
      I view that currently as a technical limitation that will likely be lifted as the technology progresses. Our species has been hard at work on the field of AI-image generation for only a decade, and we have thousands of years to go. So I would posit that this barrier is probably a short-term one.
      • girvo 4y ago
        I agree. But what do we do about the models that are trained on CSAM prior to this inevitable breakthrough? Because you and I both know it’s likely to happen.
• anigbrowl 4y ago
  That will definitely happen; I suspect the criminal offense will be adjusted toward making distribution illegal, but possession might be tolerated (in some societies) if an artificial origin can credibly be established. It's very hard to predict how this will shake out. I personally doubt that looking at extreme/contraband porn is a good strategy for coping with highly illegal desires but obsessive behaviors aren't something that's easy to model reliably. Considering that weaponizing false claims of predatory behavior as a coercive social/political tactic is a big thing at the moment, you probably shouldn't hold your breath hoping for any sort of consensus to emerge in the short term.
• schuke 4y ago
  This would be extremely controversial but I remember The Economist mentioned porn for pedophiles as part of the solution (the premise being it's a genetic condition that criminalization doesn't work very well against). AI generation would remove some the moral issues.
• goolz 4y ago
  I’ll bite. The issue is it will take all of 5 seconds for an enterprising CP producer/admin/consumer to mix AI content into their stash and then claim they’re being persecuted when the feds come knocking. It’s like lolicon, sure, you can sit there and pretend it’s a 2000 year old demon warrior… but she is still dressed, posed and drawn to mimic a small child. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a conundrum, that’s for sure. I hate the idea of the thought police. I love free speech. But in the end, I believe any material, whether it is “art” or computer generated, should be barred if it contains images that can be construed as a child in a sexual act (ancient art gets a pass?). Lolicon does not stop pedophiles from being pedophiles. Nor would this. It would simply act as a gateway and a scapegoat imho.
• rpigab 4y ago
  There's prolly gonna be a big controversy when pedos start using it that way and proof is posted on mainstream websites. I've just discovered lexica.art and I love all picture generator AI tools, but when stumbling upon some pictures of young Emma Watson topless, it didn't seem ok, and reading the prompt for these images showed that the user didn't go for tags like "young" or "topless", it's just StableDiffusion randomly selecting these features, maybe because there's wierd content about Emma Watson online on shady sites, maybe something else. I'm not sure I want all of them to close access to these tools, stop providing open source capabilities, or prevent specific keywords like Dall-E does, but it's the easy solution for providers. This is why we can't have nice things (there's so many interesting, funny and beautiful things that aren't illegal or even controversial but that are blocked as side-effects of Dall-E's restrictions).