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
    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.

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

                  If you don’t think you sound like you’re saying it’s legal/should be legal I have very bad news for you.

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

                    Seeing that it’s been explicitly stated that that’s not the case, you strike me as a dude that cares less about the meaning of words than the opportunity to argue about 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.