4 ms·

From a purely ethical standpoint, sure, I agree. But we live in reality, and there are plenty of activities that seem ethically victimless, but are practically

From a purely ethical standpoint, sure, I agree. But we live in reality, and there are plenty of activities that seem ethically victimless, but are practically necessary to criminalize, in order to uphold societal frameworks and expectations of morality. In this case, by giving every CSAM criminal a potential excuse that they "thought it was AI generated," the real victims are further victimized by being deprived of justice or forced to prove their realness.

dragonwriter 3y ago
Broadening the definitions of crime to make it easier to punish the ethically guilty on scant evidence while incidentally sweeping up the ethically innocent is a hack around a legal tradition that is designed exactly on the principal that it is better that the guilty go unpunished than the innocent are punished, by making the genuinely innocent administratively guilty, and we ought to reject that kind of justification every time it rears its head. (There are times when it is important to have commonality while the choice of the common practice isn't important, which justifies regulations of obviously ethically unimportant things like "which side of the road is it correct to drive on relative to the direction of travel"; but where the purpose of a crime is purely to lower the evidentiary bar to punish people presumed guilty of a narrower crime, that's just an attempt to hack around the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof of guilt.)
- chatmasta 3y ago
  I agree with you. I think our disagreement here is over the level of innocence of someone possessing AI generated CSAM. If you believe, as I do, that such a person is guilty of a crime, then we're not risking the false guiltiness of an innocent person. At best, we're risking their level of sentencing. And I'm open to the idea of reduced sentences for AI CSAM, but it shouldn't be a factor in determination of guilt (i.e. it should be a matter between the judge and the defendant, rather than something the prosecution needs to prove). With regards to CSAM criminalization in general, there is a real risk of punishing innocent people that may have been framed by planted evidence. But this is a risk regardless of whether the evidence is "real" CSAM or not, so legalizing possession of AI-generated CSAM doesn't reduce the risk of an innocent person being framed. It might make it "easier" for a bad actor to frame someone, since they can now do it with AI content instead of real content. But if they're already planting evidence, do they really care whether they're committing a crime while preparing the evidence? And besides, if we keep the AI content illegal, then it's equally legally risky to frame someone with it as it is to frame them with real content. The problem of prosecuting "innocent" people, whether you believe they're innocent because they were framed or because they're only guilty of possessing AI-generated CSAM, should be addressed at the time of enforcement. Stop using entrapment and fishing expeditions as an enforcement mechanism. Only open investigations when they start with a real and identifiable victim, rather than a potential perpetrator.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I think our disagreement here is over the level of innocence of someone possessing AI generated CSAM. > If you believe, as I do, that such a person is guilty of a crime, You just explicitly said upthread that ethically they are not, but argued that it is useful for them to be treated as criminals because it denies an excuse to those who are ethically guilty because they are possessors of genuine CSAM. You seem to be moving your fundamental ethical premises around in response to it being pointed out that the argument you previously made conflicts with a different widely proclaimed ethical premise.
    - chatmasta 3y ago
      My ethical premise is that there is no direct victim of AI generated CSAM, but that it's worth criminalizing because otherwise it further victimizes victims of existing law. In other words, there is a societal victim of it. To me it's the same ethical premise but interpreted within two different frameworks: one that's purely idealistic, and one that's based in practical reality.
      - sneak 3y ago
        AI cannot generate CSAM, because AI cannot abuse children. AI makes fictional images, which definitionally cannot be images of child sexual abuse. There is literally no victim of any kind, even conceptually, in the case of computer generated imagery. It should be protected artistic expression.
        chatmasta 3y ago
        What if a police officer generates some AI CSAM and then sells it to someone who thinks it's real? There's still "no victim," but the buyer thinks that there was. Are they guilty of a crime? Your logic would seem to imply that there's no crime with possession of real CSAM either, and that the only crime lies with the original abuser who took the pictures.
        3y ago
- saalweachter 3y ago
  Broadening the definition of a crime isn't exactly unheard of. To choose a less emotional subject, mattress tags. The ethical reason for mattress tags is because historically people would sell mattresses stuffed full of all sorts of unsavory garbage. What we actually criminalized, or at least were trying to prevent, was some sort of fraud or public endangerment. But we also along the way made it illegal for sellers to remove the tags from mattresses. Removing the tag isn't inherently harmful; if you don't deceive the purchaser on the contents of the mattress, it's not even fraud. But we broadened the definition of the crime to make it easier to enforce.
  - novok 3y ago
    You are going into forced labelling disclosure, which can have a lot of benefits beyond fraud prevention because it increases informed consent and all sorts of other net goods. It's the logic and ethics of nutrition labels, and IMO is probably one of the more good vs bad things that govts can mandate.

dragonwriter 3y ago

Broadening the definitions of crime to make it easier to punish the ethically guilty on scant evidence while incidentally sweeping up the ethically innocent is a hack around a legal tradition that is designed exactly on the principal that it is better that the guilty go unpunished than the innocent are punished, by making the genuinely innocent administratively guilty, and we ought to reject that kind of justification every time it rears its head. (There are times when it is important to have commonality while the choice of the common practice isn't important, which justifies regulations of obviously ethically unimportant things like "which side of the road is it correct to drive on relative to the direction of travel"; but where the purpose of a crime is purely to lower the evidentiary bar to punish people presumed guilty of a narrower crime, that's just an attempt to hack around the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof of guilt.)

chatmasta 3y ago
I agree with you. I think our disagreement here is over the level of innocence of someone possessing AI generated CSAM. If you believe, as I do, that such a person is guilty of a crime, then we're not risking the false guiltiness of an innocent person. At best, we're risking their level of sentencing. And I'm open to the idea of reduced sentences for AI CSAM, but it shouldn't be a factor in determination of guilt (i.e. it should be a matter between the judge and the defendant, rather than something the prosecution needs to prove). With regards to CSAM criminalization in general, there is a real risk of punishing innocent people that may have been framed by planted evidence. But this is a risk regardless of whether the evidence is "real" CSAM or not, so legalizing possession of AI-generated CSAM doesn't reduce the risk of an innocent person being framed. It might make it "easier" for a bad actor to frame someone, since they can now do it with AI content instead of real content. But if they're already planting evidence, do they really care whether they're committing a crime while preparing the evidence? And besides, if we keep the AI content illegal, then it's equally legally risky to frame someone with it as it is to frame them with real content. The problem of prosecuting "innocent" people, whether you believe they're innocent because they were framed or because they're only guilty of possessing AI-generated CSAM, should be addressed at the time of enforcement. Stop using entrapment and fishing expeditions as an enforcement mechanism. Only open investigations when they start with a real and identifiable victim, rather than a potential perpetrator.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I think our disagreement here is over the level of innocence of someone possessing AI generated CSAM. > If you believe, as I do, that such a person is guilty of a crime, You just explicitly said upthread that ethically they are not, but argued that it is useful for them to be treated as criminals because it denies an excuse to those who are ethically guilty because they are possessors of genuine CSAM. You seem to be moving your fundamental ethical premises around in response to it being pointed out that the argument you previously made conflicts with a different widely proclaimed ethical premise.
  - chatmasta 3y ago
    My ethical premise is that there is no direct victim of AI generated CSAM, but that it's worth criminalizing because otherwise it further victimizes victims of existing law. In other words, there is a societal victim of it. To me it's the same ethical premise but interpreted within two different frameworks: one that's purely idealistic, and one that's based in practical reality.
    - sneak 3y ago
      AI cannot generate CSAM, because AI cannot abuse children. AI makes fictional images, which definitionally cannot be images of child sexual abuse. There is literally no victim of any kind, even conceptually, in the case of computer generated imagery. It should be protected artistic expression.
      - chatmasta 3y ago
        What if a police officer generates some AI CSAM and then sells it to someone who thinks it's real? There's still "no victim," but the buyer thinks that there was. Are they guilty of a crime? Your logic would seem to imply that there's no crime with possession of real CSAM either, and that the only crime lies with the original abuser who took the pictures.
        3y ago
saalweachter 3y ago
Broadening the definition of a crime isn't exactly unheard of. To choose a less emotional subject, mattress tags. The ethical reason for mattress tags is because historically people would sell mattresses stuffed full of all sorts of unsavory garbage. What we actually criminalized, or at least were trying to prevent, was some sort of fraud or public endangerment. But we also along the way made it illegal for sellers to remove the tags from mattresses. Removing the tag isn't inherently harmful; if you don't deceive the purchaser on the contents of the mattress, it's not even fraud. But we broadened the definition of the crime to make it easier to enforce.
- novok 3y ago
  You are going into forced labelling disclosure, which can have a lot of benefits beyond fraud prevention because it increases informed consent and all sorts of other net goods. It's the logic and ethics of nutrition labels, and IMO is probably one of the more good vs bad things that govts can mandate.