2 ms·
>but the same person paying same money for an "artistic depiction" just funds someone clicking around on a computer - there's a world of difference in the harmf
by serf 3y ago
>but the same person paying same money for an "artistic depiction" just funds someone clicking around on a computer - there's a world of difference in the harmfulness of these activities, and the legal penalties should reflect that.
that distinction becauses dodgier when you consider the checkpoint training methods are suspected of using csam imagery within the training corpus[0], but I agree with your points otherwise.
In principal an AI generated image doesn't exploit someone elses' existence if trained on safe and sane data.
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/12/20/stable-diffusion-child-sexual-abuse-material-stanford-internet-observatory/?sh=3a71bfbd5f21 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandralevine/2023/12/20/stab...
- PeterisP 3y agoI think that even if it would be trained on a large set of actual CSAM data, it makes a very practical difference that the "marginal cost" of new images doesn't imply more abuse. E.g. I have a local example in mind after a local pedophile was arrested in a bust of an international CSAM ring, the story goes that he was consuming CSAM, and joining that "better" ring of CSAM content required providing "original content" (that's one way they protected against law enforcement infiltration) and allegedly that need for that was the reason he went from watching CSAM to actually molesting several kids to film it. If we can remove this kind of motivation, that's IMHO a good thing for society.