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

  • @PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    030 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
      130 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.