3 ms·

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 pe

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.
      - giantrobot 3y ago
        > Are they guilty of a crime? Unless there is a very specific "attempt to acquire CSAM" law then no they're not fucking guilty of any crime. If you live in a state where marijuana is illegal and you smoke some oregano because you thought it was marijuana you're not guilty of actually possessing marijuana. A criminal law is composed of a number of individual statutes. When a state is trying to prosecute someone for a crime they need to prove three elements for each statute: the criminal act (actus reus), intent (mens rea), and the concurrence of both of those. If a cop sells you oregano and you think it's marijuana you might have the intent to buy marijuana but there's no actual criminal act because oregano isn't illegal. If you make a law that only requires intent then congratulations, you've created thought crimes. If you want to make entirely fake CSAM possession illegal, that's essentially the same as an intent-only law and creates thought crimes. It's a slippery slope.

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.
    - giantrobot 3y ago
      > Are they guilty of a crime? Unless there is a very specific "attempt to acquire CSAM" law then no they're not fucking guilty of any crime. If you live in a state where marijuana is illegal and you smoke some oregano because you thought it was marijuana you're not guilty of actually possessing marijuana. A criminal law is composed of a number of individual statutes. When a state is trying to prosecute someone for a crime they need to prove three elements for each statute: the criminal act (actus reus), intent (mens rea), and the concurrence of both of those. If a cop sells you oregano and you think it's marijuana you might have the intent to buy marijuana but there's no actual criminal act because oregano isn't illegal. If you make a law that only requires intent then congratulations, you've created thought crimes. If you want to make entirely fake CSAM possession illegal, that's essentially the same as an intent-only law and creates thought crimes. It's a slippery slope.