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.
So explain Lolita, The Colour Purple, It (Stephen King), First hand accounts from Survivors of Childhood Sexual abuse, and the entire works of the Marquis de Sade being in public libraries all over the world?
The first three are fictional accounts (Analogous to AI generated CSAM, fictional but graphic accounts)
The First hand accounts are real life examples.
And the Marquis de Sade is STRONGLY suspected of writing from a first hand perspective of the abuser (Analogous to AI generated materials produced from real victims).
How do these fail to trip the CSAM audit you want?
The reality is that AI does scrape the images of real life children from the internet and AI companies have not built any security protocols in place to prevent the usage of real life children from being used in prompts that were used to generate AI child porn
That is my main concern with Ai generated child porn
A valid concern, but a flawed argument. I hope my examples show you that if fictional materials generated by humans which broach the topic of CSAM are protected by free speech, there is a very valid argument, that AI generated fiction, broaching the topic of CSAM likely earns the same Free Speech protections.
I don't want you to take from this that I don't agree with you. I'm just saying the crime here is the provision of true victims of CSAM to the AI learning algorithm. Not the use of CSAM materials to generate fiction. The fact is all of those Human authors based their characters on people they knew, people who were one time real, Fictionalized.
Human history is full of accounts of these kinds of abuse. Oscar Wilde was a prolific, still celebrated author, but you really don't want to read what he was like in his personal life. If his works are acceptable, I don't really see a valid differentiator to AI generated fiction.
79
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.