4 ms·

People have been saying that for decades before generative AI was a glimmer in anyone's eyes. Even the story we're commenting is of someone who was doing both.

by jdiff 3y ago

People have been saying that for decades before generative AI was a glimmer in anyone's eyes. Even the story we're commenting is of someone who was doing both. It's time to retire that tired theory.

ben_w 3y ago
As with all interventions, it is a claim that can only be tested by comparing abuse rates in two otherwise very similar jurisdictions, where the only difference is the availability of such material. To think otherwise is to presume that all members of the target group are identical, which is implausible. Even attempting to run such a pure observational study of such a situation would be denounced, even if the researchers had no power to alter the laws. If you did somehow manage to run such a study, I expect you'd find three things: (1) plenty of examples of people who were inspired to act due to the images they saw, (2) plenty of examples of people who used the images as a way out, (3) that there are way more abusers and victims than most people realise.
oatmeal1 3y ago
What you're saying is the market-share of the AI version that does not involve additional exploitation of minors in its creation is going up over time. The evidence is increasing that the theory is right. If the AI version gets good enough, the supply of a substitute will real CP will go up, the price of real CP will go down, meaning there is less incentive to exploit real children.
- jdiff 3y ago
  That's assuming a lot of things that are shockingly poor choices to assume. Like that the only reason children are exploited is for photographs.
  - oatmeal1 3y ago
    > Like that the only reason children are exploited is for photographs. The unreasonable assumptions you assert I'm making are of your own imagination.
    - jdiff 3y ago
      Your argument is built on assertions and assumptions that do not stand up to reality. It's not my imagination, its your own words. AI will do nothing to demand for CSAM because the premise is faulty.

by jdiff 3y ago

People have been saying that for decades before generative AI was a glimmer in anyone's eyes. Even the story we're commenting is of someone who was doing both. It's time to retire that tired theory.

ben_w 3y ago

As with all interventions, it is a claim that can only be tested by comparing abuse rates in two otherwise very similar jurisdictions, where the only difference is the availability of such material. To think otherwise is to presume that all members of the target group are identical, which is implausible. Even attempting to run such a pure observational study of such a situation would be denounced, even if the researchers had no power to alter the laws. If you did somehow manage to run such a study, I expect you'd find three things: (1) plenty of examples of people who were inspired to act due to the images they saw, (2) plenty of examples of people who used the images as a way out, (3) that there are way more abusers and victims than most people realise.

oatmeal1 3y ago

What you're saying is the market-share of the AI version that does not involve additional exploitation of minors in its creation is going up over time. The evidence is increasing that the theory is right. If the AI version gets good enough, the supply of a substitute will real CP will go up, the price of real CP will go down, meaning there is less incentive to exploit real children.

jdiff 3y ago
That's assuming a lot of things that are shockingly poor choices to assume. Like that the only reason children are exploited is for photographs.
- oatmeal1 3y ago
  > Like that the only reason children are exploited is for photographs. The unreasonable assumptions you assert I'm making are of your own imagination.
  - jdiff 3y ago
    Your argument is built on assertions and assumptions that do not stand up to reality. It's not my imagination, its your own words. AI will do nothing to demand for CSAM because the premise is faulty.