41–50 of 87 posts
Between the 3D printed weapons and the AI CSAM, this year is already shaping up to be wild in terms of misuses of technology. I suppose that’s one downside of adoption.
How are 3D printed weapons a misuse?
AI-generated "CSAM" is the perfect form of kompromat. Any computer with a GPU can generate images that an American judge can find unpalatable. Once tarred by the sex offender brush and cooled by 20+ years in prison for possession, any individual will be effectively destroyed. Of course, no real children are being abused, which makes it all the more ludicrous.
At some level we just have to hope, and be skeptical of etc, that the government is basically staffed by mostly trustworthy people.
> "The creation of CSAM using AI is inherently harmful to children because the machine-learning models utilized by AI have been trained on datasets containing thousands of depictions of known CSAM victims," it says, "revictimizing these real children by using their likeness to generate AI CSAM images into perpetuity." The word "inherently" there seems like a big stretch to me. I see how it could be harmful to them, b…
I always found these arguments to be contrived especially when it's already well-known that in the tradition of every Western government, there is no actual imperative for every crime to be linked directly to a victim. It's a far better argument to me, to suggest that the societal utility in using the material to identify and remove paedophiles before they have an actual victim far exceeds the utility of any sort of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is known that the LAION dataset underpinning foundation models like Stable Diffusion contained at least a few thousand instances of real-life CSAM at one point. I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that any model trained on internet scrapes definitively wasn't trained on any CSAM whatsoever. https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/20/24009418/generative-ai-i...
> I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that any model trained on internet scrapes definitively wasn't trained on any CSAM whatsoever. I'd be hard pressed to prove that you definitely hadn't killed anybody ever. Legally if it's asserted that these images are criminal because they are the result of being the product of an LLM trained on sources that contained CSAM then the requirement would be to prove that asser…
Legally, possession of CSAM is against the law because there is an assumption that possession proves contribution to market demand, with an understanding that demand incentives production of supply, meaning there that with demand children will be harmed again to produce more content to satisfy the demand. In other words, the intent is to stop future harm. This is why people have been prosecuted for things like suggestive cartoons that have no real-life events behind them. It is not illegal on the grounds of past events. The actual abuse is illegal on its own standing.
The provenance of the imagery is irrelevant. What you need to prove is that your desire to have such imagery won't stimulate yourself or others to create new content with real people. If you could somehow prove that LLM content will satisfy all future thirst, problem solved! That would be world changing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Framing it in that way is essentially a get out of jail free card - anyone caught with CSAM can claim it was AI generated by a "clean" model, and how would the prosecution ever be able to prove that it wasn't? I get where you are coming from but it doesn't seem actionable in any way that doesn't effectively legalize CSAM possession, so I think courts will have no choice but to put the burden of proof on the accused.…
This seems like a long way of saying “guilty until proven innocent”.
> "The creation of CSAM using AI is inherently harmful to children because the machine-learning models utilized by AI have been trained on datasets containing thousands of depictions of known CSAM victims," it says, "revictimizing these real children by using their likeness to generate AI CSAM images into perpetuity." The word "inherently" there seems like a big stretch to me. I see how it could be harmful to them, b…
The word "revictimizing" seems like an even bigger stretch. Assuming the output images don't actually look like them personally (and they won't), how exactly are they more victimized than anybody else in the training data? Those other people's likenesses are also "being used to generate AI CSAM images into perpetuity"... in a sort of attenuated way that's hard to even find if you're not desperately trying to come up…
AI-generated "CSAM" is the perfect form of kompromat. Any computer with a GPU can generate images that an American judge can find unpalatable. Once tarred by the sex offender brush and cooled by 20+ years in prison for possession, any individual will be effectively destroyed. Of course, no real children are being abused, which makes it all the more ludicrous.
You could say the same thing about real CSAM. Authorities claim you have it, present a hard drive they "recovered" from your property to court and you get convicted. At some level we just have to hope, and be skeptical of etc, that the government is basically staffed by mostly trustworthy people.
> You could say the same thing about real CSAM.
Maybe this is trying to make a technical point.
But abuse is a brutally heavy topic, mere technicalities aren't ever going to be strong enough to support the weight put upon them.
That said: I do believe there are counter arguments to be made. I question the ethics and actions of people who leverage the pain of injured children to expand gov reach and power.
Having been a child who can check all the abuse boxes, it gets old watching the endless parade of interests try to mine that pain for their own ends.
Question for anyone that knows, but what happens if a 16 year old draws a naked picture of their 16 year old partner?
This entirely ignores what happens when you have states classifying telling a child “it’s ok to be gay/trans” as child abuse, or even just being gay/trans as a sex crime - which plenty of states in the US have said that they want to do.
Typically the same states and people that actively support child abuse by banning actual sex ed, and normalizing child molestation.
Be interesting to see how this pans out in terms of the 1st amendment. Without a victim, it would be interesting to see how the courts rule. They could say its inherently unconstitutional but for sake of the general public, it is fine. This would be similar to the supreme court ruling on DUI checkpoints.
So I’m unsure why even if there were no victims that would be relevant.
To me the problem here is they might identify someone with a problem, but then send them to jail with essentially the same label as an actual pedofile or rapist, and prisons in the US exist as a source of slave labor and future criminals rather than any kind of rehab. So person goes in who is already clearly fucked up (not necessarily this case, assume some case where it’s clearly be demonstrated guilt or whatever) and then comes out with a pile of trauma and no employment prospects and it seems like a sure fire way to create an actual dangerous pedo/abuser.
I think a better equivalence would be the treatment of alcohol - alcoholics don’t go to jail immediately, not even when driving, it requires them failing to get the alcoholism treated, or actually harming people for them to end up in jail.
Seems fine.