4 ms·

>> no real, live child was harmed in its creation That’s a big claim. If the model was trained on CSAM then I would argue that any image generation that comes

>> no real, live child was harmed in its creation That’s a big claim. If the model was trained on CSAM then I would argue that any image generation that comes from it is harmful to the original children. In the same way copies of already existing content continue to harm the victim.

like_any_other 2y ago
> If the model was trained on CSAM And if the used car I buy was stolen, I have contributed to car theft. That's not an argument against used car sales, especially from salesmen that try to make sure their inventory is legitimate: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/nonprofit-scrubs-illegal-content-from-controversial-ai-training-dataset/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/nonprofit-scrubs...
- chongli 2y ago
  Sure, though if you buy a stolen car in a private sale you have no recourse when the police show up to return it to the original owner. If you bought it from a registered dealership then you can be compensated for it.
newAccount2025 2y ago
How does it harm the children whose images it was trained on? Maybe if it substantially recreates the input images it is equivalent to plain copying and redistribution. Maybe it creates an economic incentive to abuse more children to create more training data?
washadjeffmad 2y ago
You're right, but your "if" is doing some heavy lifting. A result being able to be generated does not imply that a dataset contained content that resembled the result. These models are wildly intuitive and can assemble impossible ideas, even when datasets are purged of certain tags. I discovered this early on when I couldn't diagnose why most subjects came out as weirdly child-like elderly people. It turns out "mature" is not synonymous with "nsfw" when negative prompting, and a person absent of maturity, while not explicitly a child, doesn't quite look like a normal adult human, either. I don't think the model was trained on a large corpus of very old babies, yet it was able to imagine them. As long as a model knows what the pieces are or are not, it can be prompted assemble them.

like_any_other 2y ago

> If the model was trained on CSAM And if the used car I buy was stolen, I have contributed to car theft. That's not an argument against used car sales, especially from salesmen that try to make sure their inventory is legitimate: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/nonprofit-scrubs-illegal-content-from-controversial-ai-training-dataset/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/nonprofit-scrubs...

chongli 2y ago
Sure, though if you buy a stolen car in a private sale you have no recourse when the police show up to return it to the original owner. If you bought it from a registered dealership then you can be compensated for it.

newAccount2025 2y ago

How does it harm the children whose images it was trained on? Maybe if it substantially recreates the input images it is equivalent to plain copying and redistribution. Maybe it creates an economic incentive to abuse more children to create more training data?

washadjeffmad 2y ago

You're right, but your "if" is doing some heavy lifting. A result being able to be generated does not imply that a dataset contained content that resembled the result. These models are wildly intuitive and can assemble impossible ideas, even when datasets are purged of certain tags. I discovered this early on when I couldn't diagnose why most subjects came out as weirdly child-like elderly people. It turns out "mature" is not synonymous with "nsfw" when negative prompting, and a person absent of maturity, while not explicitly a child, doesn't quite look like a normal adult human, either. I don't think the model was trained on a large corpus of very old babies, yet it was able to imagine them. As long as a model knows what the pieces are or are not, it can be prompted assemble them.