- cross-posted to:
- legalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- legalnews@lemmy.zip
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
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.
Its not though, its just a drawing.
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.
And when characters are killed on screen in movies, are those snuff films?
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.