3 ms·

In most cases commenting on votes is boring and pointless, as per the guidelines. However, rather unusually, I've found it really quite interesting to watch the

by jchw 2y ago

In most cases commenting on votes is boring and pointless, as per the guidelines. However, rather unusually, I've found it really quite interesting to watch the votes on this comment. It paints a picture that people are actually quite split on this matter. I kind of figured it might wind up in the gray (I don't say "am I the only one" without good cause usually) but on the other hand it leaves me genuinely curious exactly how people disagree with this. (To be clear, I'm probably not actually going to engage much more since this is not really a topic I care deeply about but it's more a morbid curiosity.)

thomastjeffery 2y ago
The article we are talking about wants to be about CSAM stories. That alone is a topic that most people have a strong opinion about. A strong enough opinion to say that anything even adjacent to the topic is not worth even a little consideration. CSAM is the penultimate taboo subject, and for good reason. But this article isn't really about CSAM. It's about the taboo itself. This article taunts the reader: if CSAM truly deserves to be taboo, then it logically follows that anything resembling CSAM should be censored, and its creators punished. If we take this argument seriously, then we must actually consider what it means to resemble CSAM. That's a path that no one is interested in exploring, so the argument itself just vanishes. -- The real argument is about the threat of story. Every writer has the power to write any story that they can imagine. There is nothing new about this: it's been true since prehistory, since language itself.
throwanem 2y ago
I describe what I have learned in later life about what was done to me in earlier. One may "groom" a child to accept sexual abuse in large part by portraying this as an entirely normal aspect of their present phase of life. To do so requires the presentation of what appears to be true evidence. Such images are invariably lies, but remember that the victim is a child as naïve to lies as to all else, yet. What he sees he will also believe, and not notice all the lies behind it. AI-generated CSAM makes this a much, much easier process. It relieves the prerequisite of acquiring genuine child pornography. Now, all that's required is unsupervised access, not even both at once, to both an AI and a child. You have now expanded the threat radius by several orders of magnitude. This alone suffices to justify AI-generated CSAM as a crime. In the US you may own many types of rifle. You may not, though, own an artillery rifle. It is far too dangerous a weapon, and you no more than any other civilian can have any possible lawful use of such a thing. Therefore its simple possession is a crime. The same principle applies here.
- rolph 2y ago
  "You may not, though, own an artillery rifle" if you are not a criminal and pass the paperwork, you actually can. however, where you operate your howie is another matter.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    If you mean to say we should seek to set the same bar on AI that generates CSAM, then that seems to me a very fine place to start - grandfather clause and all.
    - jchw 2y ago
      I think the main issue with regulating computer programs and the Internet the way we regulate physical objects is that replication on the internet is roughly free. I think if we really wanted regulation like this to be meaningful, it would have to involve regulating the sale of compute power, something I personally really hope doesn't happen. That said, we're probably about to see a very similar issue crop up in the real world with 3D printed firearms, and I'm personally not looking forward to the consequences of it pretty much regardless of what the outcome is. Interesting times.
      - throwanem 2y ago
        I might have been more clear that my analogy was specific to the theory of the crime, and not intended to speak to methods of abating it. You are of course correct that these would need to differ. I don't like the idea of such regulation being made in ignorance, either. Engineers should have a seat at that table, which requires first that we have earned it. I don't see where we have begun to do that, and I did my first paid work in this profession twenty-nine years ago. If that failure on the part of our profession proves to have consequences for us or for society, then I don't think any one of us is free to consider the blame for those entirely undeserved. Again, I don't require to have convinced you.
        2y ago

by jchw 2y ago

thomastjeffery 2y ago

The article we are talking about wants to be about CSAM stories. That alone is a topic that most people have a strong opinion about. A strong enough opinion to say that anything even adjacent to the topic is not worth even a little consideration. CSAM is the penultimate taboo subject, and for good reason. But this article isn't really about CSAM. It's about the taboo itself. This article taunts the reader: if CSAM truly deserves to be taboo, then it logically follows that anything resembling CSAM should be censored, and its creators punished. If we take this argument seriously, then we must actually consider what it means to resemble CSAM. That's a path that no one is interested in exploring, so the argument itself just vanishes. -- The real argument is about the threat of story. Every writer has the power to write any story that they can imagine. There is nothing new about this: it's been true since prehistory, since language itself.

throwanem 2y ago

I describe what I have learned in later life about what was done to me in earlier. One may "groom" a child to accept sexual abuse in large part by portraying this as an entirely normal aspect of their present phase of life. To do so requires the presentation of what appears to be true evidence. Such images are invariably lies, but remember that the victim is a child as naïve to lies as to all else, yet. What he sees he will also believe, and not notice all the lies behind it. AI-generated CSAM makes this a much, much easier process. It relieves the prerequisite of acquiring genuine child pornography. Now, all that's required is unsupervised access, not even both at once, to both an AI and a child. You have now expanded the threat radius by several orders of magnitude. This alone suffices to justify AI-generated CSAM as a crime. In the US you may own many types of rifle. You may not, though, own an artillery rifle. It is far too dangerous a weapon, and you no more than any other civilian can have any possible lawful use of such a thing. Therefore its simple possession is a crime. The same principle applies here.

rolph 2y ago
"You may not, though, own an artillery rifle" if you are not a criminal and pass the paperwork, you actually can. however, where you operate your howie is another matter.
- throwanem 2y ago
  If you mean to say we should seek to set the same bar on AI that generates CSAM, then that seems to me a very fine place to start - grandfather clause and all.
  - jchw 2y ago
    I think the main issue with regulating computer programs and the Internet the way we regulate physical objects is that replication on the internet is roughly free. I think if we really wanted regulation like this to be meaningful, it would have to involve regulating the sale of compute power, something I personally really hope doesn't happen. That said, we're probably about to see a very similar issue crop up in the real world with 3D printed firearms, and I'm personally not looking forward to the consequences of it pretty much regardless of what the outcome is. Interesting times.
    - throwanem 2y ago
      I might have been more clear that my analogy was specific to the theory of the crime, and not intended to speak to methods of abating it. You are of course correct that these would need to differ. I don't like the idea of such regulation being made in ignorance, either. Engineers should have a seat at that table, which requires first that we have earned it. I don't see where we have begun to do that, and I did my first paid work in this profession twenty-nine years ago. If that failure on the part of our profession proves to have consequences for us or for society, then I don't think any one of us is free to consider the blame for those entirely undeserved. Again, I don't require to have convinced you.
      - 2y ago