So....what does this mean for Hentai and Yaoi??
FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
31–38 of 38 posts
Re: FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
#32it seems to me like we're missing an opportunity to give these people a victim-free outlet for their urges. i'm not really educated on what treatment looks like for these people, and harms to society from AI CSAM should obviously be considered too. but some kind of "prescription" or otherwise regulated generation of these images should at least be considered, i think.
It's not victimless if they use real images to train their AI models.
Controversial images like this, such as Taylor Swift deepfakes, can be generated without training on any related explicit material.
Re: FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, so an obscene cartoon drawing in pencil with a pencil purchased locally would not be an offense, but if the pencil was purchased interstate or by mail then it is. Are there any actual cases on this? i.e., someone downloads a model, creates but does not distribute the results, gets convicted?
I think prosecutors would probably argue that even using a pencil purchased locally meets the bar of making the "visual depiction... produced using materials.. or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer". The Commerce Clause has been read very expansively since the Wickard v. Filburn[1] in the New Deal era. One of the current legal projects of the Fe…
> I think prosecutors would probably argue that even using a pencil purchased locally meets the bar of making the "visual depiction... produced using materials.. or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer".
This would expand the Commerce Clause beyond Wickard v. Filburn arguably.
> Previously, the Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft vs FSC that for CSAM to be illegal, it must at least meet the bar for obscenity, or it must be produced via actual exploitation.
You meant virtual child pornography? New York v. Ferber established Congress could ban real child pornography regardless of obscenity. I don't think Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition changed this. And calling all child pornography CSAM has made people confused about what images are illegal.
> The main point here is that something is happening and that will probably result in interesting decisions later on.
Possibly. Probably it will result in a plea bargain. And courts have resisted to clarify obscenity.
Re: FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Not harm society" will depend on what material the models are trained with.
Running some order of magnitudes, we've had people abusing children and taking photos of it since around 1850. By this point there is a large enough corpus of whatever horrors they want to look at that a model can be trained without doing any further harm. It is a total waste of taxpayer funds to be going after someone if all they've done is generate however many images with stable diffusion. I'm glad in this case he…
How would policing that work exactly? Downloading only old CSAM is acceptable? Technically any child abuse material available was produced in the past, so you could argue any pedophile downloading any of it isn't 'doing any further harm'.
But the harm in it comes from generating further demand and normalising the sexualization of children. And than can happen with any material from before or after 1850. If a model is trained on it, it becomes a derivative work that should be treated no differently than a b&w version of a colour abuse image.
Not sure what tax dollars have to do with this but IMO it's a small price to pay for an important service.
Re: FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Running some order of magnitudes, we've had people abusing children and taking photos of it since around 1850. By this point there is a large enough corpus of whatever horrors they want to look at that a model can be trained without doing any further harm. It is a total waste of taxpayer funds to be going after someone if all they've done is generate however many images with stable diffusion. I'm glad in this case he…
How would policing that work exactly? Downloading only old CSAM is acceptable? Technically any child abuse material available was produced in the past, so you could argue any pedophile downloading any of it isn't 'doing any further harm'. But the harm in it comes from generating further demand and normalising the sexualization of children. And than can happen with any material from before or after 1850. If a model is…
> Technically any child abuse material available was produced in the past, so you could argue any pedophile downloading any of it isn't 'doing any further harm'.
Sounds like I'd be happy to go with that. You're taking it to the logical conclusion and I generally agree. The problem to me is (1) people abusing children and (2) people paying other people to abuse children.
> Not sure what tax dollars have to do with this but IMO it's a small price to pay for an important service.
It isn't an important service. With the advent of generative AI models, going after people for possessing dodgy images is now more than likely persecuting people who haven't done any harm to anyone and aren't going to.
We really should have learned this lesson after Turing. If people aren't harming anyone then it is OK for them to have bizarre sexual likes and dislikes.
Re: FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would policing that work exactly? Downloading only old CSAM is acceptable? Technically any child abuse material available was produced in the past, so you could argue any pedophile downloading any of it isn't 'doing any further harm'. But the harm in it comes from generating further demand and normalising the sexualization of children. And than can happen with any material from before or after 1850. If a model is…
> Technically any child abuse material available was produced in the past, so you could argue any pedophile downloading any of it isn't 'doing any further harm'. Sounds like I'd be happy to go with that. You're taking it to the logical conclusion and I generally agree. The problem to me is (1) people abusing children and (2) people paying other people to abuse children. > Not sure what tax dollars have to do with thi…
"it is OK for them to have bizarre sexual likes and dislikes."
I agree, so long as they are not consuming something that harmed anyone. Just as we know banning ivory sales reduces elephant poaching, contributing to demand causes harm. Putting an AI step in between the CP and its consumption is the same as before, it doesn't change anything.
Re: FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Technically any child abuse material available was produced in the past, so you could argue any pedophile downloading any of it isn't 'doing any further harm'. Sounds like I'd be happy to go with that. You're taking it to the logical conclusion and I generally agree. The problem to me is (1) people abusing children and (2) people paying other people to abuse children. > Not sure what tax dollars have to do with thi…
"it is OK for them to have bizarre sexual likes and dislikes." I agree, so long as they are not consuming something that harmed anyone. Just as we know banning ivory sales reduces elephant poaching, contributing to demand causes harm. Putting an AI step in between the CP and its consumption is the same as before, it doesn't change anything.
It changes everything. It removes the part where harm needs to be done to satisfy demand. If someone says "I want a picture of X!" and an AI generates them the picture, no harm is done.
Re: FBI Arrests Man for Generating AI Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
"it is OK for them to have bizarre sexual likes and dislikes." I agree, so long as they are not consuming something that harmed anyone. Just as we know banning ivory sales reduces elephant poaching, contributing to demand causes harm. Putting an AI step in between the CP and its consumption is the same as before, it doesn't change anything.
It changes everything. It removes the part where harm needs to be done to satisfy demand. If someone says "I want a picture of X!" and an AI generates them the picture, no harm is done.
The harm was done. It was just done before the consumption step, just like buying an ivory shoehorn or making a photocopy of an existing image of child abuse.
The only way around it is the model is not trained on any child abuse material, otherwise legally it's consuming a CP product.