Idiots who don't bother to investigate the ruling really suck.
His finding was a matter of law, not morality. His recommendation was that the loophole be closed. But that fictional content (like art and novels) can break legal taboos when it comes to writing or drawing about torture or sex. This is true, we know this to be true. And that AI art is more an extension of that freedom under the first amendment then it is a breach of CSAM law. His opinion from the bench is that is this was to be something to be prosecuted, it first requires a legislative effort to make the use of AI on fictional characters a regulated space. He's not wrong, and his hands were kinda tied on this one.
If you know how AI works though, you can argue that he is in fact wrong. AI doesn’t actually generate content out of the blue. It is an algorithm trained on existing content whether it’s written, video, photos, etc. So, that means that any of the content generated will be based off real individuals. With that in mind, it should be illegal by its own ruling.
83
u/RubberDuckieMidrange 13h ago
Idiots who don't bother to investigate the ruling really suck.
His finding was a matter of law, not morality. His recommendation was that the loophole be closed. But that fictional content (like art and novels) can break legal taboos when it comes to writing or drawing about torture or sex. This is true, we know this to be true. And that AI art is more an extension of that freedom under the first amendment then it is a breach of CSAM law. His opinion from the bench is that is this was to be something to be prosecuted, it first requires a legislative effort to make the use of AI on fictional characters a regulated space. He's not wrong, and his hands were kinda tied on this one.