9 ms·

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 favor

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.