4 ms·

I’m gonna give this a very charitable read by saying that while I find the ways that the treatment of burn victims was advanced by abhorrent means, we as a soci

by davisp 2y ago

I’m gonna give this a very charitable read by saying that while I find the ways that the treatment of burn victims was advanced by abhorrent means, we as a society have still benefited from those means. > So once the model is created there isn't a good reason to encumber it by how it was created. I am trying to be very specific here. I assume no untoward motivations from the parent commenter. I am not intending to cast aspersions. Whoever wrote this, I feel no ill will for you and this is not meant as a personal slight. And I will be very clear, this statement as written could probably be defended because of the “by how it was created” clause. However, “So once the model is created there isn’t a good reason to encumber it” is so… fucking I don’t even know, because what the actual fuck? I apologize for the profanity, I really do. But, really? Are you fucking kidding me? These models should not exist. Ever. By any means. Do not pass Go. Go directly to jail. I understand the engineering brain enough to contemplate abstract concepts with detachment. That’s all I think happened here. But holy fuck, please pause and consider things a bit.

throwaway7313 2y ago
Outlawing the use of existing material is vital market protection for producers. Denouncing these models may not actually be a good way to reduce harm.
throwaway749372 2y ago
> These models should not exist. Ever. By any means. Do not pass Go. Go directly to jail. If it's possible to produce CSAM that doesn't involve actual children and have a measurable impact in profitablity and demand of the real thing, leading to a net reduction in the harm done to children wouldn't you be on the wrong side of the argument you think you're making? > I understand the engineering brain enough to contemplate abstract concepts with detachment. I would argue it's a rational take. Can we agree the goal to reduce harm of children is good? Or only if the solution is comfortable to you?
rdtsc 2y ago
> These models should not exist. Ever. By any means. Do not pass Go. Go directly to jail. Exactly. It's disturbing that this needs to be explained to people.
- roenxi 2y ago
  All the alternatives are likely to result in more children being harmed. These models probably should exist. Ideally they'll destroy the commercial incentives for people to hurt children.

by davisp 2y ago

throwaway7313 2y ago

Outlawing the use of existing material is vital market protection for producers. Denouncing these models may not actually be a good way to reduce harm.

throwaway749372 2y ago

> These models should not exist. Ever. By any means. Do not pass Go. Go directly to jail. If it's possible to produce CSAM that doesn't involve actual children and have a measurable impact in profitablity and demand of the real thing, leading to a net reduction in the harm done to children wouldn't you be on the wrong side of the argument you think you're making? > I understand the engineering brain enough to contemplate abstract concepts with detachment. I would argue it's a rational take. Can we agree the goal to reduce harm of children is good? Or only if the solution is comfortable to you?

rdtsc 2y ago

> These models should not exist. Ever. By any means. Do not pass Go. Go directly to jail. Exactly. It's disturbing that this needs to be explained to people.

roenxi 2y ago
All the alternatives are likely to result in more children being harmed. These models probably should exist. Ideally they'll destroy the commercial incentives for people to hurt children.