5 ms·

What if people use it to generate child porn?

thematrixturtle 4y ago
Seems preferable to using children to generate child porn? In any case, since the training data here does not feature children, this particular model would be useless for that.
komali2 4y ago
Taking the comment in good faith as a more general philosophical question, I think it's quite interesting. From the fact that weaboos tend to claim their favorite lolis are 9000 year old dragons or whatever, I'm guessing it's already legally fraught to trade drawings of CP. I'm guessing AI generated images would fall in the same category, though where responsibility falls I'm not as clear on. The person who input in such a way as to try to generate CP? The platform the generator is hosted on? Whoever got the training data and did the training? I feel like the person seeking CP is a clear answer but society is looking to hold facebook, twitter, and others responsible for content on their sites so I'm not as sure.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- XorNot 4y ago
  The practical argument is that whatever dark-market ended up trading models which produce CP material would likely end up being spiked with actual CP input data to try and improve "realism". At which point the moral dimension clarifies: creating an incentive to abuse children to create better models for simulating child abuse is the exact same reason posession of CP is illegal to start with. And since it won't be possible to prove any particular model without perfect providence wasn't produced this way, their use will just be illegal. This is, realistically, also the problem with just pornography generating models in general, and all of these models in total: if there's illegal data in the input set, what does that mean? I suspect the next hurdle with them is going to be license compliance-enabled training - models which can prove any given output has at most a certain type of license and providence on input data.
ipnon 4y ago
The legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors is a gray area in the United States, but generally mere possession is not criminal without a prior criminal record or involvement with real-life child pornography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley
- zmmmmm 4y ago
  it's not gray in Australia .... even accidentally generating a fake CP image could get you into serious trouble. People have been convicted just for possessing line drawings of entirely fictional indecent images of children (not even specifically "porn").
kylebgorman 4y ago
Yes, this is a discussion forum, so while you're welcome to pose ethical questions, you should also feel free to weigh in on them too ;) It's a challenging question. Is it the mere fact of someone being aroused by children that makes child pornography offensive to society, or is it our belief that the creation of such materials necessary involves some degree of exploitation? If the latter, what about the well-documented risks of exploitation of consenting adult pornographic performers? Does access to pornography increase or decrease adults' tendencies to engage in unsanctioned sexual acts?
- braingenious 4y ago
  >…If the latter, what about the well-documented risks of exploitation of consenting adult pornographic performers? I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here but your post kind of reads like “child sexual abuse material is equivalent to porn made by consenting adults.” Posing that as a philosophical “what if” and then moving on isn’t very different from just stating that as an opinion.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    For an exceptionally loose definition of "equivalent", yes. And?
    - braingenious 4y ago
      Ok cool, I’m glad we cleared that up. I am not really interested in engaging on this topic, as the sort of “Debate me!”-style hot take is (in my experience) not usually offered in good faith, rather it’s more often some sort of rhetorical dick measuring contest amongst internet strangers.
      - thfuran 4y ago
        You seem to be operating further from good faith than them.
        4y ago
dragonwriter 4y ago
The central harm of child pornography is the victimization of children in its production (and the fact that commercial demand for it fuels such victimization). Arguably, there are also lesser harms from consumption of it, but even so harmless generation of to-order child porn that collapsed the value of the harmfully generated kind by being indistinguishable from it would probably be a net win. (Of course, with the techniques currently used, that would require a large corpus of the harmfully generated kind to work from; but one could imagine further developments in ML that allow better generalization that would allow that without any actual abuse images.)

Seems preferable to using children to generate child porn? In any case, since the training data here does not feature children, this particular model would be useless for that.

komali2 4y ago

Taking the comment in good faith as a more general philosophical question, I think it's quite interesting. From the fact that weaboos tend to claim their favorite lolis are 9000 year old dragons or whatever, I'm guessing it's already legally fraught to trade drawings of CP. I'm guessing AI generated images would fall in the same category, though where responsibility falls I'm not as clear on. The person who input in such a way as to try to generate CP? The platform the generator is hosted on? Whoever got the training data and did the training? I feel like the person seeking CP is a clear answer but society is looking to hold facebook, twitter, and others responsible for content on their sites so I'm not as sure.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
XorNot 4y ago
The practical argument is that whatever dark-market ended up trading models which produce CP material would likely end up being spiked with actual CP input data to try and improve "realism". At which point the moral dimension clarifies: creating an incentive to abuse children to create better models for simulating child abuse is the exact same reason posession of CP is illegal to start with. And since it won't be possible to prove any particular model without perfect providence wasn't produced this way, their use will just be illegal. This is, realistically, also the problem with just pornography generating models in general, and all of these models in total: if there's illegal data in the input set, what does that mean? I suspect the next hurdle with them is going to be license compliance-enabled training - models which can prove any given output has at most a certain type of license and providence on input data.

ipnon 4y ago

The legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors is a gray area in the United States, but generally mere possession is not criminal without a prior criminal record or involvement with real-life child pornography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley

zmmmmm 4y ago
it's not gray in Australia .... even accidentally generating a fake CP image could get you into serious trouble. People have been convicted just for possessing line drawings of entirely fictional indecent images of children (not even specifically "porn").

kylebgorman 4y ago

Yes, this is a discussion forum, so while you're welcome to pose ethical questions, you should also feel free to weigh in on them too ;) It's a challenging question. Is it the mere fact of someone being aroused by children that makes child pornography offensive to society, or is it our belief that the creation of such materials necessary involves some degree of exploitation? If the latter, what about the well-documented risks of exploitation of consenting adult pornographic performers? Does access to pornography increase or decrease adults' tendencies to engage in unsanctioned sexual acts?

braingenious 4y ago
>…If the latter, what about the well-documented risks of exploitation of consenting adult pornographic performers? I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here but your post kind of reads like “child sexual abuse material is equivalent to porn made by consenting adults.” Posing that as a philosophical “what if” and then moving on isn’t very different from just stating that as an opinion.
- thfuran 4y ago
  For an exceptionally loose definition of "equivalent", yes. And?
  - braingenious 4y ago
    Ok cool, I’m glad we cleared that up. I am not really interested in engaging on this topic, as the sort of “Debate me!”-style hot take is (in my experience) not usually offered in good faith, rather it’s more often some sort of rhetorical dick measuring contest amongst internet strangers.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      You seem to be operating further from good faith than them.
      - 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

The central harm of child pornography is the victimization of children in its production (and the fact that commercial demand for it fuels such victimization). Arguably, there are also lesser harms from consumption of it, but even so harmless generation of to-order child porn that collapsed the value of the harmfully generated kind by being indistinguishable from it would probably be a net win. (Of course, with the techniques currently used, that would require a large corpus of the harmfully generated kind to work from; but one could imagine further developments in ML that allow better generalization that would allow that without any actual abuse images.)