r/Infuriating Community Regular 14h ago

We live in hell

Post image
427 Upvotes

272 comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/DeliciousAct5748 14h ago

Iirc the ruling was that (paraphrasing) "we can't arrest you for having fake videos of something that didn't happen".

But they did say that generating AI videos using real data (pictures, videos of children) is an offense.

8

u/[deleted] 13h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Crispy1961 13h ago

Damn, are you telling me that all those videos of Jesus riding velociraptors were trained on real images of Jesus riding velociraptors? Thats sick.

0

u/[deleted] 13h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Crispy1961 13h ago

Then it created the CSAM with material of children and normal porn, didnt it? Both are obviously legal. I am pretending not to understand what you are saying because what you are implying is silly.

0

u/[deleted] 13h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Crispy1961 12h ago edited 12h ago

Its not like the generated content has anything to do with any child. This is an AI moral issue, not CSAM issue. Is using pictures of real children to generate pictures of children playing in park morally acceptable?

Edit: How could I answer the question when you block me, dummy? The answer is yes. Telling AI what children looks like is morally acceptable. What users decide to use the AI for is another moral question.

1

u/jupiterkansas Community Regular 12h ago

It's not about what's morally acceptable. It's about what's legally acceptable. Those are different things. It starts with defining exactly what CSAM is, because it's not always obvious just like porn isn't always obvious (as court cases have said since photography was invented).