13 ms·

I wonder if this could help pedophile people since generated porn wouldn't imply abuse of children.

by fyvhbhn 4y ago

drekipus 4y ago
- krapp 4y ago
  I know slandering "the woke" is de rigueur on HN, which is why you made this non-sequitur comment, but pedophiles renaming themselves MAPs has nothing whatsoever to do with "wokeness" or its terminology. Enjoy the endorphine hit though I guess.
  - drekipus 4y ago
    I renamed it don't worry
- stoplying1 4y ago
  Do y'all really see no irony of you being the first one to bring in corrective language while simultaneously assigning it to and blaming a pejorative SJW, I mean, woke, ideology? Not to mention the absolutely stupid premise in general that progressivism seeks to downplay pedophilia? Again, do you have any idea how it's perceived? Also, since HN threads about this topic devolve into pedantry, I'm pretty sure the term to be used in these types of threads is CSAM. It's explicit and long enough than it can be acronym-ized in a way that feels less icky that typing out "child sexual abuse material" each time.
  - drekipus 4y ago
    What does the 'M' stand for in CSAM? I don't mind what they're called as long as it's palatable to wider society and they don't feel offended.
  - atq2119 4y ago
    This is sort of offtopic, but I wonder how the term CSAM appeared. It used to be just "child porn", and then fairly recently all of a sudden, over the course of at most a few months, everybody started to call it "CSAM" instead. Funny how this sort of thing happens, it makes me suspect some sort of agenda that isn't really stated out loud.
dudul 4y ago
I may be mistaken but wasn't there some cases of people convicted for owning drawings of CP?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bambax 4y ago
  Really? That would be conceptually similar to AI-generated images. What would have been the rationale?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > That would be conceptually similar to AI-generated images. I would expect those to be similarly illegal in the same jurisdiction. > What would have been the rationale? If I see a photo of ice cream, I tend to crave real ice cream.
    - bambax 4y ago
      > If I see a photo of ice cream, I tend to crave real ice cream Would you say this works for other things? Esp. violence? Should all depictions of violence be banned? Or any undesirable behavior? The list may be long. But more importantly, what you're describing is advertising. An image of an ice cream isn't an ice cream. Porn works differently. It doesn't advertise for real sex. Porn conflates the representation and the thing itself into one; it delivers gratification directly, something an image of an ice cream doesn't do.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > Would you say this works for other things? Esp. violence? If I find myself sexually aroused by violence. > But more importantly, what you're describing is advertising. Sure. We restrict or prohibit advertisements of certain things. Including child sexual abuse on that list is probably OK. > Porn works differently. It doesn't advertise for real sex. I'm not sure I agree. There are, for example, indications consumers of porn are more likely to request / engage in certain sex acts common in porn, like facials, anal sex, choking, etc. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32081698/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32081698/
satori99 4y ago
In my country it is a crime to possess imagery depicting underage sex acts. It does not matter if the actors are legal adults or not -- so, it probably does not matter if they are real either.
- Jensson 4y ago
  But is it a crime to possess an algorithm that can generate CP? You don't possess the images, it just generates them. If it is a crime then it means any model which can generate CP under any circumstances will be illegal.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Once it generates them, at your request, you possess them. Don't count on the legal system to go "haha you got me touché" on this.
    - lvass 4y ago
      If that's how it works, these AI models _really_ should prevent taking queries with "child" in them. Imagine you have one of these AIs installed, all you need is to stroke six keyboard keys to face a 20+ years criminal charge (of the type your ass is not spared). A bad actor with a few seconds in front of your screen could take this hell upon you. Having something like this installed in a laptop is equivalent to leaving your unlocked gun on a table pointed at you in public.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        > A bad actor with a few seconds in front of your screen could take this hell upon you. This has already been the case for quite some time. AI doesn't really add anything new to that part of the equation.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
hn_throwaway_69 4y ago
This is still child abuse material and probably still illegal where you live. The reason is obvious, it's a gateway to the abuse of real children.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Let's discuss the morality first. There's a few reasons that consuming CSAM can be immoral: - encouraging further production by adding view count, ad revenue, social encouragement to creators. - compounding victimization by improving circulation. - apparent gateway effect, either in the individual consuming it or by allowing a culture of tolerance. It's the same logic for snuff films. AI created CSAM basically removes the first two issues and leaves the third. But I'd add that the third is somewhat up for debate unless there's some specific evidence from psychology (although my default assumption is that you're right on this). And I'd add that there's some argument that it reduces the demand for real CSAM.
  - naniwaduni 4y ago
    It's also the same logic as the moral panic against violence in video games, which seems like a poor look for the credibility of the "moral" argument.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > The reason is obvious, it's a gateway to the abuse of real children. Please provide some evidence for this.
bambax 4y ago
I think this is a very interesting question that is being systematically sidestepped in these debates. Sexual preferences are a given; some people are attracted to the opposite sex, some people are attracted to the same sex, some people are attracted to children. Nothing they (or anyone) can do about it, lest one decides to indulge in so-called "conversion therapy". Of course, children can't consent, and abusing children is horrible. And child porn is horrible because it implies children have been abused to produce it. But AI-generated child porn, however nauseating it might sound, doesn't hurt anybody.
- hn_throwaway_69 4y ago
  >doesn't hurt anybody You're looking at it too narrowly. AI-generated CSAM may facilitate a sexual interest in children among certain individuals. Development of such an interest makes it significantly more likely they will abuse children. So it ought be illegal.
  - gruez 4y ago
    Is this backed empirically? The argument you made is almost identical to the ones used for "grand theft auto is making kids violent!".
    - hn_throwaway_69 4y ago
      There's no reason to make such material lawful unless the converse is proved by empirical evidence. That is, can it be proved that people who view AI-based material are less likely to act on a sexual interest in real children? Unless that's proven, there's no other reason to make such material lawful. You're welcome to provide one. The analogy is not apt. You cannot compare image-based abuse of children with a video game. GTA is a legitimate form of entertainment, child abuse material is not. They are not remotely similar. This shows why analogies are almost never helpful and it's best just to focus on the topic under discussion.
      - dannyw 4y ago
faebi 4y ago
Some countries forbid child porn even if no child was involved, it does not need to be real to be illegal. I assume so one can't say it was assumed to be fake but it wasn't. The lines get blurry when you generate porn with keywords like 18. Can you guarantee a legal training set of images? What if some actors look younger than they actually are? How will this affect the results? How do you proof the age of a person which doesn't exist based on one image?
throw0101c 4y ago
> I wonder if this could help pedophile people since generated porn wouldn't imply abuse of children. In some jurisdiction even "virtual" child porn is still treated as criminal: > A sufficient reason, on basis on which Canadian Parliament was warranted to prohibit not only production and distribution (which were not direct question in that case) but also purely private possession of child pornography - even, if it has nothing to do with use of actual children in its production - was, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion "reasoned apprehension of harm" which may flow from exposing some people to such a materials. * http://bartlomiejkozlowski.pl/virtualchildporn.htm http://bartlomiejkozlowski.pl/virtualchildporn.htm
guilhas 4y ago
Help? If someone admits they think they might go do something wrong like: sexual abuse, arson, shooting someone... would it help them to give them virtual content of rape, shooting games, horror/torture...? Would GTA helps criminals in their rehabilitation? I am not an expert on what help they need, but it would not be content that fuels their obsession For most criminals we give them prison. For people with disorders we give the mental treatment But possibly they can be treated with psychotherapy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity
naasking 4y ago
No, because "child porn" includes cartoons which already don't imply abuse of children. As long as such content can decrease recidivism/prevent child abuse, which preliminary research suggest it does, it seems logical to permit it. Unfortunately I'm not sure it will ever fly with the wider public, the subject matter is just too distasteful regardless of the evidence.

I wonder if this could help pedophile people since generated porn wouldn't imply abuse of children.

drekipus 4y ago

krapp 4y ago
I know slandering "the woke" is de rigueur on HN, which is why you made this non-sequitur comment, but pedophiles renaming themselves MAPs has nothing whatsoever to do with "wokeness" or its terminology. Enjoy the endorphine hit though I guess.
- drekipus 4y ago
  I renamed it don't worry
stoplying1 4y ago
Do y'all really see no irony of you being the first one to bring in corrective language while simultaneously assigning it to and blaming a pejorative SJW, I mean, woke, ideology? Not to mention the absolutely stupid premise in general that progressivism seeks to downplay pedophilia? Again, do you have any idea how it's perceived? Also, since HN threads about this topic devolve into pedantry, I'm pretty sure the term to be used in these types of threads is CSAM. It's explicit and long enough than it can be acronym-ized in a way that feels less icky that typing out "child sexual abuse material" each time.
- drekipus 4y ago
  What does the 'M' stand for in CSAM? I don't mind what they're called as long as it's palatable to wider society and they don't feel offended.
- atq2119 4y ago
  This is sort of offtopic, but I wonder how the term CSAM appeared. It used to be just "child porn", and then fairly recently all of a sudden, over the course of at most a few months, everybody started to call it "CSAM" instead. Funny how this sort of thing happens, it makes me suspect some sort of agenda that isn't really stated out loud.

dudul 4y ago

I may be mistaken but wasn't there some cases of people convicted for owning drawings of CP?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bambax 4y ago
Really? That would be conceptually similar to AI-generated images. What would have been the rationale?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > That would be conceptually similar to AI-generated images. I would expect those to be similarly illegal in the same jurisdiction. > What would have been the rationale? If I see a photo of ice cream, I tend to crave real ice cream.
  - bambax 4y ago
    > If I see a photo of ice cream, I tend to crave real ice cream Would you say this works for other things? Esp. violence? Should all depictions of violence be banned? Or any undesirable behavior? The list may be long. But more importantly, what you're describing is advertising. An image of an ice cream isn't an ice cream. Porn works differently. It doesn't advertise for real sex. Porn conflates the representation and the thing itself into one; it delivers gratification directly, something an image of an ice cream doesn't do.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > Would you say this works for other things? Esp. violence? If I find myself sexually aroused by violence. > But more importantly, what you're describing is advertising. Sure. We restrict or prohibit advertisements of certain things. Including child sexual abuse on that list is probably OK. > Porn works differently. It doesn't advertise for real sex. I'm not sure I agree. There are, for example, indications consumers of porn are more likely to request / engage in certain sex acts common in porn, like facials, anal sex, choking, etc. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32081698/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32081698/

satori99 4y ago

In my country it is a crime to possess imagery depicting underage sex acts. It does not matter if the actors are legal adults or not -- so, it probably does not matter if they are real either.

Jensson 4y ago
But is it a crime to possess an algorithm that can generate CP? You don't possess the images, it just generates them. If it is a crime then it means any model which can generate CP under any circumstances will be illegal.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Once it generates them, at your request, you possess them. Don't count on the legal system to go "haha you got me touché" on this.
  - lvass 4y ago
    If that's how it works, these AI models _really_ should prevent taking queries with "child" in them. Imagine you have one of these AIs installed, all you need is to stroke six keyboard keys to face a 20+ years criminal charge (of the type your ass is not spared). A bad actor with a few seconds in front of your screen could take this hell upon you. Having something like this installed in a laptop is equivalent to leaving your unlocked gun on a table pointed at you in public.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > A bad actor with a few seconds in front of your screen could take this hell upon you. This has already been the case for quite some time. AI doesn't really add anything new to that part of the equation.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

hn_throwaway_69 4y ago

This is still child abuse material and probably still illegal where you live. The reason is obvious, it's a gateway to the abuse of real children.

hackerlight 4y ago
Let's discuss the morality first. There's a few reasons that consuming CSAM can be immoral: - encouraging further production by adding view count, ad revenue, social encouragement to creators. - compounding victimization by improving circulation. - apparent gateway effect, either in the individual consuming it or by allowing a culture of tolerance. It's the same logic for snuff films. AI created CSAM basically removes the first two issues and leaves the third. But I'd add that the third is somewhat up for debate unless there's some specific evidence from psychology (although my default assumption is that you're right on this). And I'd add that there's some argument that it reduces the demand for real CSAM.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  It's also the same logic as the moral panic against violence in video games, which seems like a poor look for the credibility of the "moral" argument.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yellowapple 4y ago
> The reason is obvious, it's a gateway to the abuse of real children. Please provide some evidence for this.

bambax 4y ago

I think this is a very interesting question that is being systematically sidestepped in these debates. Sexual preferences are a given; some people are attracted to the opposite sex, some people are attracted to the same sex, some people are attracted to children. Nothing they (or anyone) can do about it, lest one decides to indulge in so-called "conversion therapy". Of course, children can't consent, and abusing children is horrible. And child porn is horrible because it implies children have been abused to produce it. But AI-generated child porn, however nauseating it might sound, doesn't hurt anybody.

hn_throwaway_69 4y ago
>doesn't hurt anybody You're looking at it too narrowly. AI-generated CSAM may facilitate a sexual interest in children among certain individuals. Development of such an interest makes it significantly more likely they will abuse children. So it ought be illegal.
- gruez 4y ago
  Is this backed empirically? The argument you made is almost identical to the ones used for "grand theft auto is making kids violent!".
  - hn_throwaway_69 4y ago
    There's no reason to make such material lawful unless the converse is proved by empirical evidence. That is, can it be proved that people who view AI-based material are less likely to act on a sexual interest in real children? Unless that's proven, there's no other reason to make such material lawful. You're welcome to provide one. The analogy is not apt. You cannot compare image-based abuse of children with a video game. GTA is a legitimate form of entertainment, child abuse material is not. They are not remotely similar. This shows why analogies are almost never helpful and it's best just to focus on the topic under discussion.
    - dannyw 4y ago

faebi 4y ago

Some countries forbid child porn even if no child was involved, it does not need to be real to be illegal. I assume so one can't say it was assumed to be fake but it wasn't. The lines get blurry when you generate porn with keywords like 18. Can you guarantee a legal training set of images? What if some actors look younger than they actually are? How will this affect the results? How do you proof the age of a person which doesn't exist based on one image?

throw0101c 4y ago

> I wonder if this could help pedophile people since generated porn wouldn't imply abuse of children. In some jurisdiction even "virtual" child porn is still treated as criminal: > A sufficient reason, on basis on which Canadian Parliament was warranted to prohibit not only production and distribution (which were not direct question in that case) but also purely private possession of child pornography - even, if it has nothing to do with use of actual children in its production - was, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion "reasoned apprehension of harm" which may flow from exposing some people to such a materials. * http://bartlomiejkozlowski.pl/virtualchildporn.htm http://bartlomiejkozlowski.pl/virtualchildporn.htm

guilhas 4y ago

Help? If someone admits they think they might go do something wrong like: sexual abuse, arson, shooting someone... would it help them to give them virtual content of rape, shooting games, horror/torture...? Would GTA helps criminals in their rehabilitation? I am not an expert on what help they need, but it would not be content that fuels their obsession For most criminals we give them prison. For people with disorders we give the mental treatment But possibly they can be treated with psychotherapy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity

naasking 4y ago

No, because "child porn" includes cartoons which already don't imply abuse of children. As long as such content can decrease recidivism/prevent child abuse, which preliminary research suggest it does, it seems logical to permit it. Unfortunately I'm not sure it will ever fly with the wider public, the subject matter is just too distasteful regardless of the evidence.