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

  • @Bananigans@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    61 month 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
      01 month 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
          01 month 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
            11 month 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.