3 ms·

> I assume the answer to that will be that there is no need to differentiate between them. And honestly, I agree with that I disagree. The point is to reduce

> I assume the answer to that will be that there is no need to differentiate between them. And honestly, I agree with that I disagree. The point is to reduce actual child abuse. The images are in a way only tangential. If an image is made with an AI with no actual child being abused, then it shouldn't be a crime. In a way, it's better, because it will distract the crowd of people into this sort of stuff from activities that harm real people.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> because it will distract the crowd of people into this sort of stuff from activities that harm real people. This is actually the main point in dispute, and almost everyone arguing one side or the other on this topic seems to assume one side or the other on this point and argue from there, rather than seeking to support their position on the fundamental disputed fact question. Which results in the most of the debate being people talking past each other based on conflicting assumptions of fact.
- Y_Y 3y ago
  This feels a bit like "cold reading", I think you're absolutely right, but for all I know you could have been intending to post that comment on half the other threads on the front page.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Its certainly a common-enough phenomenon, what makes it specific to the topic is the specific factual disagreement relevant to this issue that people just assume a side on.
- flkenosad 3y ago
  Exactly. It may distract a crowd of people into something less harmful. Or, it may perpetuate a behaviour sort of like the commonness of cigarettes leads to more people craving nicotine.
  - trehalose 3y ago
    I think it's worth asking: Does synthesized CSAM have an "advertising" effect for real CSAM and CSA?
Chabsff 3y ago
You may think that intuitively, but actual studies actually indicate the opposite. Usage of CSAM material leads to increased risks of contacting and abusing children. This needs to be balanced against rights to privacy and expression, which I personally think take precedence, but pretending that it can serve as harm reduction is just not correct.
- chatmasta 3y ago
  I'm personally highly skeptical of the "offering them an outlet" argument. I'd be less suspicious of the idea if its proponents also suggested limiting it to controlled settings, e.g. during meetings with a professional psychiatrist. But I'm sorry, I just don't believe anyone holed up in their room with a bunch of fake CSAM is "just using it as an outlet" or "protecting real kids from harm." I mean, it almost sounds like a threat: "If you don't let me look at these pictures of fake kids, I'll hurt real kids." If that's the case then they should be seeing a psychiatrist, at minimum.
  - LorenPechtel 3y ago
    Pornography reduces rape. Violent movies that appeal to teens reduce vandalism and the like--they're in the theater rather than out causing trouble. (And it's not displaced, rates don't spike later, they just return to normal.)
    - chatmasta 3y ago
      Citation needed.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  There are so few actual studies of this, and AI images being only a year or so old, that I would not put any weight behind them at this point. My point isn't that AI CSAM should be legal or not, but whether these tools can differentiate what the lawmakers have decided is a crime or not.
- callalex 3y ago
pbhjpbhj 3y ago
>> I assume the answer to that will be that there is no need to differentiate between them. And honestly, I agree with that >I disagree. The point is to reduce actual child abuse. There are limited resources, practically the only way to do this is to make it illegal to have anything that looks real (or looks derived from a real situation, in a 'I will know it when I see it way'). Otherwise, you're just making an almost impassable defence of 'it is fake' or 'I thought it was fake'. Then you can't practically reduce actual child abuse.
anigbrowl 3y ago
You're assuming the truth of your conclusion without testing it. It's equally possible that encountering AI-CSAM is going to incentivize collectors to pay a premium for 'the real stuff', just as many CSAM collectors end up getting caught when they try to make the leap into engaging in abusive activities for real. Your mental model of how CSAM enthusiasts think isn't anchored in reality.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  I don't think that's how it works. It's not that CSAM drives them to actual abuse, but that for some CSAM isn't enough to sufficiently satisfy their desires that they go on to real abuse. Thus I see no reason they would differentiate. With normal adult porn do we care that makeup and such might be involved?
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    I'm far less sure about this. We don't understand the neurodynamics of sexual desire that well, and lots of research in sex criminals show a pattern of escalation, similar to some kinds of drug addiction. I don't understand your comparison with adult porn; that might be nonconsensual but typically isn't, whereas CP is nonconsensual by definition because minors aren't legally capable of agreeing. Obviously there are grey areas like two 17-yos sexting each other, but most courts take that context into account.
trehalose 3y ago
> In a way, it's better, because it will distract the crowd of people into this sort of stuff from activities that harm real people. I see that assertion a lot. If that's how that works, why does the very large amount of CSAM already in existence not have the same effect? Why would synthesized CSAM distract pedophiles from their activities when real CSAM from their fellow pedophiles doesn't?
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  What are pedophiles' activities? Did you mean abusers? I don't think they meant it would be 100% effective. And real child pornography may deter future abuse. Research is inconclusive.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
That's how I see it, also. There is a very clear pattern that prevalence of pornography reduces rape. Why in the world should we expect a different result when we narrow the context? Yucky as it is I believe the answer here is to have image-generating AIs sign their work. Something properly signed is known not to involve any actual children and would thus be legal. (My philosophy in general is that for something to be illegal the state should be able to show a non-consenting victim or the undue risk of a victim (ie, DUI). I do not believe disgusting things in private warrant a law.)

dragonwriter 3y ago

> because it will distract the crowd of people into this sort of stuff from activities that harm real people. This is actually the main point in dispute, and almost everyone arguing one side or the other on this topic seems to assume one side or the other on this point and argue from there, rather than seeking to support their position on the fundamental disputed fact question. Which results in the most of the debate being people talking past each other based on conflicting assumptions of fact.

Y_Y 3y ago
This feels a bit like "cold reading", I think you're absolutely right, but for all I know you could have been intending to post that comment on half the other threads on the front page.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Its certainly a common-enough phenomenon, what makes it specific to the topic is the specific factual disagreement relevant to this issue that people just assume a side on.
flkenosad 3y ago
Exactly. It may distract a crowd of people into something less harmful. Or, it may perpetuate a behaviour sort of like the commonness of cigarettes leads to more people craving nicotine.
- trehalose 3y ago
  I think it's worth asking: Does synthesized CSAM have an "advertising" effect for real CSAM and CSA?

Chabsff 3y ago

You may think that intuitively, but actual studies actually indicate the opposite. Usage of CSAM material leads to increased risks of contacting and abusing children. This needs to be balanced against rights to privacy and expression, which I personally think take precedence, but pretending that it can serve as harm reduction is just not correct.

chatmasta 3y ago
I'm personally highly skeptical of the "offering them an outlet" argument. I'd be less suspicious of the idea if its proponents also suggested limiting it to controlled settings, e.g. during meetings with a professional psychiatrist. But I'm sorry, I just don't believe anyone holed up in their room with a bunch of fake CSAM is "just using it as an outlet" or "protecting real kids from harm." I mean, it almost sounds like a threat: "If you don't let me look at these pictures of fake kids, I'll hurt real kids." If that's the case then they should be seeing a psychiatrist, at minimum.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  Pornography reduces rape. Violent movies that appeal to teens reduce vandalism and the like--they're in the theater rather than out causing trouble. (And it's not displaced, rates don't spike later, they just return to normal.)
  - chatmasta 3y ago
    Citation needed.
qingcharles 3y ago
There are so few actual studies of this, and AI images being only a year or so old, that I would not put any weight behind them at this point. My point isn't that AI CSAM should be legal or not, but whether these tools can differentiate what the lawmakers have decided is a crime or not.
callalex 3y ago

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

>> I assume the answer to that will be that there is no need to differentiate between them. And honestly, I agree with that >I disagree. The point is to reduce actual child abuse. There are limited resources, practically the only way to do this is to make it illegal to have anything that looks real (or looks derived from a real situation, in a 'I will know it when I see it way'). Otherwise, you're just making an almost impassable defence of 'it is fake' or 'I thought it was fake'. Then you can't practically reduce actual child abuse.

anigbrowl 3y ago

You're assuming the truth of your conclusion without testing it. It's equally possible that encountering AI-CSAM is going to incentivize collectors to pay a premium for 'the real stuff', just as many CSAM collectors end up getting caught when they try to make the leap into engaging in abusive activities for real. Your mental model of how CSAM enthusiasts think isn't anchored in reality.

LorenPechtel 3y ago
I don't think that's how it works. It's not that CSAM drives them to actual abuse, but that for some CSAM isn't enough to sufficiently satisfy their desires that they go on to real abuse. Thus I see no reason they would differentiate. With normal adult porn do we care that makeup and such might be involved?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  I'm far less sure about this. We don't understand the neurodynamics of sexual desire that well, and lots of research in sex criminals show a pattern of escalation, similar to some kinds of drug addiction. I don't understand your comparison with adult porn; that might be nonconsensual but typically isn't, whereas CP is nonconsensual by definition because minors aren't legally capable of agreeing. Obviously there are grey areas like two 17-yos sexting each other, but most courts take that context into account.

trehalose 3y ago

> In a way, it's better, because it will distract the crowd of people into this sort of stuff from activities that harm real people. I see that assertion a lot. If that's how that works, why does the very large amount of CSAM already in existence not have the same effect? Why would synthesized CSAM distract pedophiles from their activities when real CSAM from their fellow pedophiles doesn't?

pseudalopex 3y ago
What are pedophiles' activities? Did you mean abusers? I don't think they meant it would be 100% effective. And real child pornography may deter future abuse. Research is inconclusive.

LorenPechtel 3y ago

That's how I see it, also. There is a very clear pattern that prevalence of pornography reduces rape. Why in the world should we expect a different result when we narrow the context? Yucky as it is I believe the answer here is to have image-generating AIs sign their work. Something properly signed is known not to involve any actual children and would thus be legal. (My philosophy in general is that for something to be illegal the state should be able to show a non-consenting victim or the undue risk of a victim (ie, DUI). I do not believe disgusting things in private warrant a law.)