cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/15863526

Steven Anderegg allegedly used the Stable Diffusion AI model to generate photos; if convicted, he could face up to 70 years in prison

  • @Daxtron2
    link
    English
    3325 days ago

    How are they abuse images if no abuse took place to create them?

    • @PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      24 days ago

      Because they are images of children being graphically raped, a form of abuse. Is an AI generated picture of a tree not a picture of a tree?

      • @Daxtron2
        link
        English
        4
        edit-2
        23 days ago

        No it isn’t, not anymore than a drawing of a car is a real car, or drawings of money are real money.

          • @Daxtron2
            link
            English
            023 days ago

            And an AI generated image does not show a child being abused

              • @Daxtron2
                link
                English
                -123 days ago

                There is no child being abused by a generated image or a drawing.

                • @PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  4
                  edit-2
                  23 days ago

                  If Paedophile Hill is the hill you want to die on, it’s no loss to me, so I’ve got zero interest in your “Ceci n’est pas une child rape” defense.

                  • @Daxtron2
                    link
                    English
                    0
                    edit-2
                    23 days ago

                    And yet you still engaged with it. If we’re gonna classify every picture/drawing/gen that makes people uncomfortable as CSAM it distracts from the actual CSAM that is running rampant

        • @laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          123 days ago

          Nobody is saying they’re real, and I now see what you’re saying.

          By your answers, your question is more “at-face-value” than people assume:

          You are asking:

          “Did violence occur in real life in order to produce this violent picture?”

          The answer is, of course, no.

          But people are interpreting it as:

          “This is a picture of a man being stoned to death. Is this picture violent, if no violence took place in real life?”

          To which answer is, yes.

          • @Daxtron2
            link
            English
            123 days ago

            It can be abhorrent and unlikable, its still not abuse

            • @laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              223 days ago

              We’re not disagreeing.

              The question was:

              “Is this an abuse image if it was generated?”

              Yes, it is an abuse image.

              Is it actual abuse? Of course not.

              • @Daxtron2
                link
                English
                023 days ago

                And yet its being treated as though it is

                • @laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  023 days ago

                  Well, that’s another story. I just answered your question. “Are these images about abuse even if they’re generated?” Yup, they are.

                  “Should people be prosecuted because of them?” Welp, someone with more expertise should answer this. Not me.

                • @PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  22 days ago

                  Images of children being raped are being treated as images of children being raped. Nobody has every been caught with child pornography and charged as if they abused the children themselves, nor is anybody advocating that people generating AI child pornography are charged as if they sexually abused a child.

                  Everything is being treated as it always has been, but you’re here arguing that it’s moral and harmless as long as an AI does it, using every semantic trick and shifted goalpost you possibly can.

                  It’s been gross as fuck to watch. I know you’re aiming for a kind of “king of rationality, capable of transcending even your disgust of child abuse” thing, but every argument you make is so trivial and unimportant that you’re coming across as someone hoping CSAM becomes more accessible.

            • Steal Wool
              link
              fedilink
              English
              023 days ago

              No genius it’s just promoting abuse. Have a good day.

              • @Daxtron2
                link
                English
                123 days ago

                Just like violent video games produce school shooters

                • @PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  122 days ago

                  You’ve already fucked up your own argument. You’re supposed to be insisting there’s no such thing as a “violent video game”, because representations of violence don’t count, only violence done to actual people.

                  • @Daxtron2
                    link
                    English
                    022 days ago

                    If you can’t follow a simple line of logic to explain a counterpoint, that’s on you.

        • Steal Wool
          link
          fedilink
          English
          023 days ago

          Oops you forgot to use logic. As per the comment you’re replying to, the more apt analogy would be: is an AI generated picture of a car still a picture of a car.

          • @Daxtron2
            link
            English
            123 days ago

            That has nothing to do with logic? Its pointing out that both drawings and AI gens are not really the things they might depict

      • @Leg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        324 days ago

        It’s a picture of a hallucination of a tree. Distinguishing real from unreal ought to be taken more seriously given the direction technology is moving.

        • @PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          024 days ago

          It’s a picture of a hallucination of a tree

          So yes, it’s a tree. It’s a tree that might not exist, but it’s still a picture of a tree.

          You can’t have an image of a child being raped – regardless of if that child exists or not – that is not CSAM because it’s an image of a child being sexually abused.

          Distinguishing real from unreal ought to be taken more seriously given the direction technology is moving.

          Okay, so who are you volunteering to go through an endless stream of images and videos of children being raped to verify that each one has been generated by an AI and not a scumbag with a camera? Peados?

          Why are neckbeards so enthusiastic about dying on this hill? They seem more upset that there’s something they’re not allowed to jerk off to than by the actual abuse of children.

          Functionally, legalising AI generated CSAM means legalising “genuine” CSAM because it will be impossible to distinguish the two, especially as paedophiles dump their pre-AI collections or feed them in as training data.

          People who do this are reprehensible, no matter what hair splitting and semantic gymnastics they employ.

          • @Leg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            024 days ago

            Hey man, I’m not the one. I’m literally just saying that the images that AI creates are not real. If you’re going to argue that they are, you’re simply wrong. Should these ones be generated? Obviously I’d prefer that they not be. But they’re still effectively fabrications that I’m better off simply not knowing about.

            If you want to get into the weeds and discuss the logistics of enforcing what is essentially thought crime, that is a different discussion I’m frankly not savvy enough to have here. I have no control over the ultimate outcome, but for what it’s worth, my money says thought crime will in fact become a punishable offense within our lifetimes, and this may well be an easy catalyst to use to that end. This should put your mind at ease.

            • @PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              023 days ago

              The thread is about “how are they abuse images if no abuse took place” and the answer is “because they’re images of abuse”. I haven’t claimed they’re real at any point.

              It’s not a thought crime because it’s not a thought. Nobody is being charged for thinking about raping children, they’re being charged for creating images of children being raped.

              • @Leg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                123 days ago

                If the images are generated and held by a single person, it may as well be a thought crime. If I draw a picture of a man killing an animal, which is an image depicting a heinous crime spawned by my imagination, and I go to prison over this image, I would consider this a crime of incorrect thought. There are no victims, no animals are harmed, but my will spawned an image of a harmed animal. Authorities dictated I am not allowed to imagine this scenario. I am punished for it. I understand that the expression of said thought is what’s being punished, but that is very literally the only way to punish a thought to begin with (for now), hence freedom of expression being a protected right.

                The reason this is a hard issue to discuss in this context is because the topic at hand is visceral and charged. No one wants to be caught dead defending the rights of a monster, lest they be labeled a monster themselves. I see this as a failure of society to know what to do about people like this, opting instead to throw them into a box and hope they die there. If our justice system wasn’t so broken, I might give less of a shit, but as it stands I see this response as shortsighted and inhumane.

      • @Daxtron2
        link
        English
        223 days ago

        Lemmy.world and bandwagoning on a sensitive topic that they know nothing about? Classic combo.

        • @mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          223 days ago

          You’d figure “CSAM” was clear enough. You’d really figure. But apparently we could specify “PECR” for “photographic evidence of child rape” and people would still insist “he drew PECR!” Nope. Can’t. Try again.

          • @Daxtron2
            link
            English
            023 days ago

            Ever moving goal posts. Ever notice how the ones who cry “for the children” the most seemingly have the most to hide?

    • @laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      124 days ago

      I mean… regardless of your moral point of view, you should be able to answer that yourself. Here’s an analogy: suppose I draw a picture of a man murdering a dog. It’s an animal abuse image, even though no actual animal abuse took place.

      • @Daxtron2
        link
        English
        323 days ago

        Its not though, its just a drawing.

        • @laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          123 days ago

          Except that it is an animal abuse image, drawing, painting, fiddle, whatever you want to call it. It’s still the depiction of animal abuse.

          Same with child abuse, rape, torture, killing or beating.

          Now, I know what you mean by your question. You’re trying to establish that the image/drawing/painting/scribble is harmless because no actual living being suffering happened. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t depict it.

          Again, I’m seeing this from a very practical point of view. However you see these images through the lens of your own morals or points of view, that’s a totally different thing.

          • @Daxtron2
            link
            English
            323 days ago

            And when characters are killed on screen in movies, are those snuff films?

            • @laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              223 days ago

              No, they’re violent films.

              Snuff is a different thing, because it’s supposed to be real. Snuff films depict violence in a very real sense. So so they’re violent. Fiction films also depict violence. And so they’re violent too. It’s just that they’re not about real violence.

              I guess what you’re really trying to say is that “Generated abuse images are not real abuse images.” I agree with that.

              But at face value, “Generated abuse images are not abuse images” is incorrect.

        • @Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          925 days ago

          It’s not child sexual assault if there was no abuse. However, the legal definition of csam is any visual depiction, including computer or computer-generated images of sexually explicit conduct, where […]— (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or © such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

          You may not agree with that definition, but even simulated images that look like kids engaging in sexual activity meet the threshold for CSAM.

          • JackGreenEarth
            link
            fedilink
            English
            425 days ago

            Do you not know that CSAM is an acronym that stands for child sexual abuse material?

            • Possibly linux
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -125 days ago

              True but CSAM is anything that involves minors. Its really up to the court to decide a lot of it but in the case above I’d imagine that the images were quite disturbing.

            • Possibly linux
              link
              fedilink
              English
              023 days ago

              I think the court looked at the phycological aspects of it. When you look at that kind of material you are training your brain and body to be attracted to that stuff in real life.

      • @Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        324 days ago

        We’re discussing the underpinnings and philosophy of the legality and your comment is simply “it is illegal”

        I can only draw from this that your morality is based on laws instead of vice versa.

        • Possibly linux
          link
          fedilink
          English
          023 days ago

          I’m in the camp if that there is no reason that you should have that kind of imagery especially AI generated imagery. Think about what people often do with pornography. You do not want them doing that with children regardless of if it is AI generated.

          • @Reddfugee42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            223 days ago

            What does want have to do with it? I’d rather trust science and psychologists to determine if this, which is objectively harmless, helps them control their feelings and gives them a harmless outlet.

            • Possibly linux
              link
              fedilink
              English
              123 days ago

              They aren’t banning porn in general. They just don’t want to create any more sexual desires toward children. The CSAM laws came from child protection experts. Admittedly some of these people want to “ban” encryption but that’s irrelevant in this case.

      • @mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        223 days ago

        There was no C.

        There was no SA.

        The entire point of saying “CSAM” was to distinguish evidence of child rape from depictions of imaginary events.

    • NewDark [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -425 days ago

      While I can’t say for 100% certain, it would almost assuradly be trained on many abuse images in order to generate more.

      • @Daxtron2
        link
        English
        825 days ago

        No that’s not necessarily true at all. You can take a stock stable diffusion model and output these images right Now without additional training. The whole point of diffusion models is that you don’t need 100% training data coverage to create new images outside of the original dataset. Having learned the concept of child from any normal image set of children and learning the concept of nudity/porn from legal adult images is more than enough to create a blended concept of the two.

        • @zaph@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -625 days ago

          Having learned the concept of child from any normal image set of children

          Those children are the abuse victims.

          • @Bananigans@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            625 days ago

            Having never used an AI generator, generic generated images wouldn’t be an actual match to the dataset images, right? It would just be generating features it understands to be associated with the concept of a child, which would make the claim that the dataset children are the abuse targets a stretch, unless there’s some other direct or indirect harm to them. An immediate exception being a person writing a prompt attempting to create a specific facsimile of an individual.

            • @zaph@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              025 days ago

              Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene.

              That’s nice, still illegal.

                • @zaph@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  024 days ago

                  The thread is discussing why it’s considered abuse if you can’t point to a victim. The answer turned out to be “because the law says so.”

                  • @Bananigans@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    124 days ago

                    If you read the law you posted, it doesn’t actually address the question of victimhood. Also, I don’t really get why you’re still trying to force an unrelated point into this part of the discussion. Maybe find another place in the thread where someone thinks it’s legal and go talk to them.

          • @Daxtron2
            link
            English
            324 days ago

            The children don’t exist. The concept of child is learned from a series of 1s and 0s

              • @Daxtron2
                link
                English
                124 days ago

                Believe it or not, US law isn’t the moral center of the universe not to mention its disproportionate use against groups it doesn’t like.

                  • @Daxtron2
                    link
                    English
                    124 days ago

                    Yeah and he should go to jail for grooming a kid but to try and pin csam creation charges on him is wrong, regardless of the US’ fucked up laws.