211–220 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> What exactly is the argument against AI-generated child porn? Currently? The fact that all the models need training data and the law will see that as victimizing the people who were used in the data set be they adults of children. Overall? The fact that it's disgusting and pedophiles deserve things which I can say IRL and everyone agrees with, but on HN will get me banned. Many countries ban underage anime porn too…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can they possibly enforce this? We don't have precedent here. Whether a person using a website with a generative AI tool counts as having a non-human creator isn't clear, and it seems to me like the answer is that it does have a human creator. Using a horse-hair brush to paint a painting doesn't mean that the painting was created by a horse and isn't subject…
Was there not just precedent set for this? The horse hair example is nonsense. One might argue that artists take inspiration from other artists to make the argument that what the AI is doing is fine. But the ai is actually only capable of blending what it’s been trained on, whereas an artist is not similarly limited. And this is how the horse hair sample is stupid.
No.
> One might argue that artists take inspiration from other artists to make the argument that what the AI is doing is fine.
This doesn't seem to address what I took to be the relevant part of IP law - that non-human authors don't create copyrighted works. It was a reductio ad absurdum for minimal non-human involvement. It's probably not the case that a monkey stealing your camera and taking a selfie creates a copyrighted work. It's probably the case that a frog triggering a motion sensor you set up for nature photography does. It's certain painting normally with a horsehair brush does.
Your remarks seem to make some sort of moral appeal, but I'm not sure how it ties into the legal concerns I thought was being raised.
> the ai is actually only capable of blending what it’s been trained on, whereas an artist is not similarly limited.
I'm not sure what "blending" means here or what the actual theories of generative art ML systems and of humans here are. To call what the former do "blending" requires such a broad definition I can't tell you if humans are blending as well (at least some of the time, at least materially) when creating works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
To expand on what I take as your implied argument- Some (small) percentage of people are pedophiles, meaning they're attracted to children. Presumably they can't help that, just as others can't change their sexual preferences. Clearly acting on this urge with an actual child is wrong. That's true whether it's directly assaulting a child, or consuming child porn, as that market encourages others to exploit children to…
I don't think those two scenarios are usefully similar. Murder is wrong because of its effects. This would be more like if you could murder someone without _anyone_ dying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably moral depravity if I had to guess. Not sure why we even need “an argument” against it. It’s pretty self-evidently wrong.
What if it turned out it were the only effective way to prevent people engaging in real paedophilia?
Paedophilia is not synonym for child sex abuse, and to the extent that conjecture hasn't been ruled out by study already, that's at most an argument that its an appropriate function for tightly-controlled research-supporting tools, not a general public business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> What exactly is the argument against AI-generated child porn? Currently? The fact that all the models need training data and the law will see that as victimizing the people who were used in the data set be they adults of children. Overall? The fact that it's disgusting and pedophiles deserve things which I can say IRL and everyone agrees with, but on HN will get me banned. Many countries ban underage anime porn too…
But its not hard to find many other sexual acts that at least some people, if not most people, find disgusting. So I'm not sure disgust is a useful criteria here.
Most of what makes pedophilia so disgusting is the fact that a child is involved. Remove the child from the equation and it's more in line with other sex preferences.
People can't really control their preferences. We've grown to understand that there are healthy, and unhealthy ways to satiate those preferences. Most of those revolve around the consent of those involved (taking as fact that children cannot consent.)
One could argue that AI allows for a healthy outlet for a pedophile.
You mention children being off limits. In other societies homosexuality is still criminal. Even where it is legal many consider it "off limits" or "disgusting". Laws, and emotions, in this space are not always logical.
There will be second-order arguments (think - the gays are trying to turn my child gay) but most of them fundamentally misunderstand how human sexuality works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the poses, it feels optimized for generating porn, but one example someone showed had a child's face (good god please don't let your "AI" system generate child anything if you want to sell it for porn purposes), and another user noted that their attempt error'd out because it "detected nudity", even though other users get given a nude model by default.
I don't know if the thing in the crotch is a penis or a scrotum, but it is definitely NSFW: https://images.generated.photos/0wV1dBnZ15hGneEfqfZT7SdEIill... My prompt was simply "Standing in front of a rocket.".