31–40 of 500 posts
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn’t the backlash due to the fact that they were running detection on device against your private library?
Yes. As opposed to running it on their servers like they do now. And it was only for iCloud synced photos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"More than 140 Facebook content moderators have been diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder caused by exposure to graphic social media content including murders, suicides, child sexual abuse and terrorism." What part here are you suggesting is similar to seeing two men kissing?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Perhaps if looking at pictures of disturbing things on the internet gives you PTSD than this isn’t the kind of job for you? Not everyone can be a forensic investigator or coroner, too. I know lots of people who can and do look at horrible pictures on the internet and have been doing so for 20+ years with no ill effects.
One of few fields where AI is very welcome
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. As opposed to running it on their servers like they do now. And it was only for iCloud synced photos.
There's a huge gap between "we will scan our servers for illegal content" and "your device will scan your photos for illegal content" no matter the context. The latter makes the user's device disloyal to its owner.
This was also during a time where Apple hadn’t pushed out e2ee for iCloud, so it didn’t even make sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe.. apple had a lot of backlash using AI to detect CSAM.
No, they had backlash against using AI on devices they don’t own to report said devices to police for having illegal files on them. There was no technical measure to ensure that the devices being searched were only being searched for CSAM, as the system can be used to search for any type of images chosen by Apple or the state. (Also, with the advent of GenAI, CSAM has been redefined to include generated imagery that…
It hasn’t been redefined. The legal definition of it in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand has included computer generated imagery since at least the 1990s. The US Congress did the same thing in 1996, but the US Supreme Court ruled in the 2002 case of Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition that it violated the First Amendment. [0] This predates GenAI because even in the 1990s people saw where CGI was going and could foresee this kind of thing would one day be possible.
Added to that: a lot of people misunderstand what that 2002 case held. SCOTUS case law establishes two distinct exceptions to the First Amendment – child pornography and obscenity. The first is easier to prosecute and more commonly prosecuted; the 2002 case held that "virtual child pornography" (made without the use of any actual children) does not fall into the scope of the child pornography exception – but it still falls into the scope of the obscenity exception. There is in fact a distinct federal crime for obscenity involving children as opposed to adults, 18 USC 1466A ("Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children") [1] enacted in 2003 in response to this decision. Child obscenity is less commonly prosecuted, but in 2021 a Texas man was sentenced to 40 years in prison over it [2] – that wasn't for GenAI, that was for drawings and text, but if drawings fall into the legal category, obviously GenAI images will too. So actually it turns out that even in the US, GenAI materials can legally count as CSAM, if we define CSAM to include both child pornography and child obscenity – and this has been true since at least 2003, long before the GenAI era.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
[2] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-man-sentenced-40-years-...
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"More than 140 Facebook content moderators have been diagnosed with severe post-traumatic stress disorder caused by exposure to graphic social media content including murders, suicides, child sexual abuse and terrorism." What part here are you suggesting is similar to seeing two men kissing?
[flagged]
Which is to say, being exposed to extreme violent/abusive content could only cause PTSD iff one is subject to a specific social construct that define these acts in a certain way. Let's just assume you're right, what kind of employees would that imply are immune to getting PTSD from such content given your previous observation?