Technology

Mhm I have mixed feelings about this. I know that this entire thing is fucked up but isn't it better to have generated stuff than having actual stuff that involved actual children?

The headline/title needs to be extended to include the rest of the sentence

"and then sent them to a minor"

Yes, this sicko needs to be punished. Any attempt to make him the victim of " the big bad government" is manipulative at best.

Edit: made the quote bigger for better visibility.

Bad title.

They caught him not simply for creating pics, but also for trading such pics etc.

It's worth mentioning that in this instance the guy did send porn to a minor. This isn't exactly a cut and dry, "guy used stable diffusion wrong" case. He was distributing it and grooming a kid.

The major concern to me, is that there isn't really any guidance from the FBI on what you can and can't do, which may lead to some big issues.

For example, websites like novelai make a business out of providing pornographic, anime-style image generation. The models they use deliberately tuned to provide abstract, "artistic" styles, but they can generate semi realistic images.

Now, let's say a criminal group uses novelai to produce CSAM of real people via the inpainting tools. Let's say the FBI cast a wide net and begins surveillance of novelai's userbase.

Is every person who goes on there and types, "Loli" or "Anya from spy x family, realistic, NSFW" (that's an underaged character) going to get a letter in the mail from the FBI? I feel like it's within the realm of possibility. What about "teen girls gone wild, NSFW?" Or "young man, no facial body hair, naked, NSFW?"

This is NOT a good scenario, imo. The systems used to produce harmful images being the same systems used to produce benign or borderline images. It's a dangerous mix, and throws the whole enterprise into question.

America has some of the most militant anti pedophilic culture in the world but they far and away have the highest rates of child sexual assault.

I think AI is going to revel is how deeply hypocritical Americans are on this issue. You have gigantic institutions like churches committing industrial scale victimization yet you won't find a 1/10th of the righteous indignation against other organized religions where there is just as much evidence it is happening as you will regarding one person producing images that don't actually hurt anyone.

It's pretty clear by how staggering a rate of child abuse that occurs in the states that Americans are just using child victims as weaponized politicalization (it's next to impossible to convincingly fight off pedo accusations if you're being mobbed) and aren't actually interested in fighting pedophilia.

These cases are interesting tests of our first amendment rights. "Real" CP requires abuse of a minor, and I think we can all agree that it should be illegal. But it gets pretty messy when we are talking about depictions of abuse.

Currently, we do not outlaw written depictions nor drawings of child sexual abuse. In my opinion, we do not ban these things partly because they are obvious fictions. But also I think we recognize that we should not be in the business of criminalizing expression, regardless of how disgusting it is. I can imagine instances where these fictional depictions could be used in a way that is criminal, such as using them to blackmail someone. In the absence of any harm, it is difficult to justify criminalizing fictional depictions of child abuse.

So how are AI-generated depictions different? First, they are not obvious fictions. Is this enough to cross the line into criminal behavior? I think reasonable minds could disagree. Second, is there harm from these depictions? If the AI models were trained on abusive content, then yes there is harm directly tied to the generation of these images. But what if the training data did not include any abusive content, and these images really are purely depictions of imagination? Then the discussion of harms becomes pretty vague and indirect. Will these images embolden child abusers or increase demand for "real" images of abuse. Is that enough to criminalize them, or should they be treated like other fictional depictions?

We will have some very interesting case law around AI generated content and the limits of free speech. One could argue that the AI is not a person and has no right of free speech, so any content generated by AI could be regulated in any manner. But this argument fails to acknowledge that AI is a tool for expression, similar to pen and paper.

A big problem with AI content is that we have become accustomed to viewing photos and videos as trusted forms of truth. As we re-learn what forms of media can be trusted as "real," we will likely change our opinions about fringe forms of AI-generated content and where it is appropriate to regulate them.

Ah yes, more bait articles rising to the top of Lemmy. The guy was arrested for grooming, he was sending these images to a minor. Outside of Digg, anyone have any suggestions for an alternative to Lemmy and Reddit? Lemmy's moderation quality is shit, I think I'm starting to figure out where I lean on the success of my experimental stay with Lemmy

Edit: Oh god, I actually checked digg out after posting this and the site design makes it look like you're actually scrolling through all of the ads at the bottom of a bulshit clickbait article

OMG. Every other post is saying their disgusted about the images part but it's a grey area, but he's definitely in trouble for contacting a minor.

Cartoon CSAM is illegal in the United States. AI images of CSAM fall into that category. It was illegal for him to make the images in the first place BEFORE he started sending them to a minor.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/possession-of-lolicon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

Article title is a bit misleading. Just glancing through I see he texted at least one minor in regards to this and distributed those generated pics in a few places. Putting it all together, yeah, arrest is kind of a no-brainer. Ethics of generating csam is the same as drawing it pretty much. Not much we can do about it aside from education.

This is tough, the goal should be to reduce child abuse. It's unknown if AI generated CP will increase or reduce child abuse. It will likely encourage some individuals to abuse actual children while for others it may satisfy their urges so they don't abuse children. Like everything else AI, we won't know the real impact for many years.

He then allegedly communicated with a 15-year-old boy, describing his process for creating the images, and sent him several of the AI generated images of minors through Instagram direct messages. In some of the messages, Anderegg told Instagram users that he uses Telegram to distribute AI-generated CSAM. “He actively cultivated an online community of like-minded offenders—through Instagram and Telegram—in which he could show off his obscene depictions of minors and discuss with these other offenders their shared sexual interest in children,” the court records allege. “Put differently, he used these GenAI images to attract other offenders who could normalize and validate his sexual interest in children while simultaneously fueling these offenders’ interest—and his own—in seeing minors being sexually abused.”

I think the fact that he was promoting child sexual abuse and was communicating with children and creating communities with them to distribute the content is the most damning thing, regardless of people's take on the matter.

Umm ... That AI generated hentai on the page of the same article, though ... Do the editors have any self-awareness? Reminds me of the time an admin decided the best course of action to call out CSAM was to directly link to the source.

I had an idea when these first AI image generators started gaining traction. Flood the CSAM market with AI generated images( good enough that you can't tell them apart.) In theory this would put the actual creators of CSAM out of business, thus saving a lot of children from the trauma.

Most people down vote the idea on their gut reaction tho.

Looks like they might do it on their own.

Breaking news: Paint made illegal, cause some moron painted something stupid.

Does this mean the AI was trained on CP material? How else would it know how to do this?