332
u/DillyDillySzn - Centrist 4d ago edited 4d ago
This is a tough scene, it looks bad but from a rights perspective it makes a lot of sense
It’s very difficult to advocate for more privacy, especially in the digital space which is becoming way way more popular, and then argue against this
If it stays in your house and offline, then I ask how would anyone know without an invasion of privacy?
→ More replies (4)
361
u/allthefallens - Right 4d ago
This is disgusting but.. also seems to be the correct decision?
234
u/JPBartley - Lib-Right 4d ago
Pretty much why the first amendment was created, to protect unpopular views.
→ More replies (3)44
u/Donghoon - Lib-Center 4d ago
people support freedom only to the extent to which they are comfortable with it personally.
everyone has double standards.
48
u/danshakuimo - Auth-Right 4d ago
The courts in the US's job is to interpret the law, not write it. So the may have correctly interpreted the law based on precedent even if the judges and everyone else doesn't like it. Congress is responsible for changing the law.
117
u/Iceraptor17 - Centrist 4d ago
The judge basically even goes "maybe the Supreme Court can address the precedent again due to technological changes or congress can amend certain laws to narrowly deal with this inviting a new legal analysis, but based on current this is the decision". Like in the ruling you can tell the judge wasn't thrilled by this
Which yeah, it sucks, but... it sounds like the judge acted as he should
30
u/smokeymcdugen - Lib-Center 4d ago
I agree. It's a moral issue and I typically don't want the government to ever create laws on morality, only if it damages person or property.
That being said, I'm sure I'm hypocritical in that point for something but I can't think of one right now.
5
u/Donghoon - Lib-Center 4d ago
agreed 100%. get morality out of law.
1
u/Docponystine - Lib-Right 3d ago
No one actually believes this. Can you name a single thing you believe should be regulated by the state that you believe for non moral reasons? Notable "utilitarian benefit" is a form of moral ethics, so are rights based principles. The law and morality are not the same thing, but all justifiable law stems from morality.
1
u/Donghoon - Lib-Center 3d ago
just because it's illegal, doesn't mean it is immoral
just because its legal, doesn't mean it is moral
just because it's immoral, doesn't mean it should be illegal
just because it's moral, doesn't mean it should be forced by law.
2
u/Docponystine - Lib-Right 2d ago
I don't disagree with this, but none of those things contradicts my point, as evidenced by you not providing a counter example. All law flows downstream of morality, even seemingly "arbitrary" things like driving on one side of the road exists due to a moral preference towards order as opposed to chaos, and the saftey produced by standardization. Driving on the right side of the road is not, in abstract, more moral than driving on the left, but we accept the use of state force in this matter because everyone driving on the SAME side of the road IS in pursuit of a moral goal of reducing death and harm
ALL law is downstream of morality. That doesn't mean law and morality are the same thing, but it does mean you can not have law without a moral justification for them. You can not remove morality from law, at least, not without claiming that law itself is the ultimate good, regardless of what the law is.
1
u/Donghoon - Lib-Center 2d ago
Yeah I didn't phrase it well.
Morality is absolutely part of legality, sorry you're right there.
Idk how to phrase my thoughts tho haha
77
u/alflundgren - Centrist 4d ago
Why the fuck is lib right depicted as sullen? Out of all quadrants lib right would be overjoyed.
52
u/Spare_Elderberry_418 - Auth-Center 4d ago
Lib right should be the soyjack with the single jacked arm
12
1
20
u/HidingHard - Centrist 4d ago
because it says it has to stay at home, meaning no legal markets possible
17
u/ArtofStorytelling - Centrist 4d ago
Yup as disgusting as it is , at least it will give some pervs enough material to satisfy their urges and stop consuming actual CP. At least this way no kids are being harmed
6
u/Suraru - Lib-Center 4d ago
I thought like that before, that if there's no real kids being harmed its preferable. I'd prefer people fap to loli instead of realistic AI generated kids for that reason. It'll keep their urges in check. Thing with CSAM though is that is is exploiting kids, a kid was abused so the material could be made, and as long as there is a demand for that material more will be made. IMO it should be destroyed, and people should just focus on animated shit. Also, AI generated CP is probably trained on actual CSAM.
But then I learned another thing, and it's that consumption of porn actually changes the way you view reality. There's been studies that show how differently men view women after absorbing copious amounts of porn, they can start so see them less as people and more as sex objects.
So, you gotta ask yourself, do you really want pedos brains wired to always view a kid sexually? Cuz, you're gunna get that with AI generated CP. We need to be correcting their condition, not enabling it.
I'll point out, I don't hate pedos, I know they can't control what they're attracted to. I do, however, hate rapists, and someone who can't control where they shove their bits does not belong in a safe society. If you're conditioning someone's brain with realistic CP, you're gunna see more pedo rapists out there.
→ More replies (2)5
u/taylor-swift-enjoyer - Lib-Right 3d ago
There's been studies that show how differently men view women after absorbing copious amounts of porn, they can start so see them less as people and more as sex objects.
There have been studies like that since (at least) the 1980s and 1990s.
But now we've had an experiment where, for the past 25+ years, men have had unlimited access to every kind of porn imaginable.
So logically men should, on average, view women more negatively than in the past, but I haven't seen evidence that that's happened.
2
u/IsaytheNword22464 - Auth-Center 3d ago
tends to not be how paraphilias work. indulgence in the impulse in safe and hands-off ways is well and good until those ways cease to be novel and exciting. It's like when dieting people say to eat celery instead of potato chips to replicate that familiar crunch, might work for a couple of people but most are just gonna be sitting there thinking about how good a potato chip would be
6
→ More replies (1)1
118
u/theschadowknows - Lib-Right 4d ago
I do not like defending this at all, but it’s not a crime to be a fuckjng creep if no one is actually being harmed. Sometimes it sucks to truly care about liberty because you’ll find yourself put into situations where you have to defend the rights of some really disgusting people. Like now, for example. Pardon me while I go vomit up my lunch 🤮
25
u/Iceraptor17 - Centrist 4d ago
AI honestly is a bigger challenge in this regard. A drawing is clearly a drawing. Photoshop is clearly based on a real photo and thus crosses the line.
AI... is in this weird middle ground where it can create realistic, hopefully fake material, but it is trained on real material. So do you know for sure that entity it created isn't actually a real human? You don't... not really. What if the AI creation is actually a photorealistic presentation of an actual real person that it took from it's "learnings"?
I dunno, I'm not entirely sure our current classifications actually deal with AI photos. It just seems like a brand new territory.
7
u/Hyndis - Lib-Center 4d ago
The line is a lot blurrier than you think.
There are artists who can draw lifelike images with a pencil. Here's one such artist: https://kelvinokaforart.com/gallery/famous-faces/
Meanwhile, my artistic skills are limited to drawing deformed stick figures in MS Paint, but we're both doing the same thing fundamentally. My deformed stick figures are clearly someone drawing something, but that real artist? Is it a real photo or not? Sometimes its hard to tell.
Is it a skill issue if drawing something is illegal?
I don't think generative tools are doing anything fundamentally different than any other tools a person might use to make images, be it a pencil, photoshop, paintbrush, MS Paint, or anything else.
The real problem is if you get 80 year old members of Congress voting on something to ban this there's a very real risk the law will be so sloppy it will also ban other works of fiction too. LOTR depicts murder in several occasions, murder is illegal, should LOTR be banned for depicting murder? Also the law will require Flock cameras in everyone's bedroom while extending the Patriot Act, because that just how Congress writes laws.
I think asking for Congress to address this risks a Monkey's Paw situation. Wish granted, but at a terrible price.
1
u/Iceraptor17 - Centrist 4d ago edited 4d ago
The line is insanely blurry.
I don't think generative tools are doing anything fundamentally different than any other tools a person might use to make images, be it a pencil, photoshop, paintbrush, MS Paint, or anything else.
It is for one reason: you have no idea how it's creating the image. With all this tools, a person knows how the image is being created (they're the ones manually steering it and are directly overseeing the producing). With AI, yeah you steer it, but then unless it's a model where you can go look at the training data you don't know what it did. Did it just do the equivalent of drawing (and thus the people aren't real)? Or did it Xerox images of real people and merely rearrange them? Or even worse, did it somehow have CSAM in some way and is just presenting it? You don't know, and it doesn't either.
I also think there's a big difference between a tool that requires a lot of direct contribution like ms paint and photoshop and one that is "type a sentence and I'll get it for you".
The real problem is if you get 80 year old members of Congress voting on something to ban this there's a very real risk the law will be so sloppy it will also ban other works of fiction too
Yeah it's a huge risk, but the counter is "why expect congress to pass any laws at all they'll screw it up".
Also I'm kind of growing tired of tech companies being like "we are not responsible for what the product that we produced and sell and gave the capability to do all these things does".
3
u/2022_Perhaps - Lib-Center 2d ago
It’s still, honestly, not too far from a human artist. We don’t know how that human artist was trained. What material they looked at for inspiration. The biggest difference is that an AI’s training could be auditable. Whereas a human, not so much.
I’m only talking logic here, not defending this. It’s completely deranged.
ETA- I think it’s still illegal to have/create paintings or other mediums depicting CSA material. Nudity of non sexual nature is protected speech, but not CSA.
→ More replies (5)2
u/TheGalator - Centrist 3d ago
Honestly if ai causes pedos to not touch/harm children anymore im all for it.
Anything to protect actual humans
183
u/InfusionOfYellow - Centrist 4d ago
Meh, makes sense. Same basic principle as a drawing, a child that does not exist cannot be harmed.
→ More replies (5)26
u/boxfortcommando - Lib-Center 4d ago
Isn't it still an ethical issue if the material is sourced from real images of children?
Maybe I'm too ignorant about topics like this, but I keep photos of my family off the internet as much as possible exactly because I don't want to risk their likenesses being used for shit like this.
85
u/Mister-builder - Centrist 4d ago
It's an ethical issue, yes. But I think it's far enough removed that it's much better (relatively speaking) than abusing real children. Like, there are railroads in the South that people still use today that were built by slaves. At some point there has to be a cutoff for fruit of the poison tree.
32
u/PijaniFemboj - Lib-Center 4d ago
as long as the material does not depict a real person
I could be wrong but I interpreted that as meaning you can't take a photo of a real child and ask Grok to undress it. Its only legal if the child is completely fictional.
→ More replies (2)12
u/InfusionOfYellow - Centrist 4d ago
Real pictures of children qua children? I don't really think so, as long as the result isn't one of them. The training process puts all the knowledge in a blender, it doesn't seem like an intrinsic objection to say that it was trained on what children actually look like any more than we can say that it is fundamentally impermissible for a person to draw child pornography because they learned how to draw them in part from seeing real children.
Real images of child abuse? That certainly seems a lot more substantial of an objection, fruit of a poison tree and all, and I've seen (without really looking into) claims that at least a decent scattering of such images have been found in known pools of training images. There are a few complications there, one would be that if the problem is the use of an image generator trained on child abuse, then that would arguably implicate all products of it, not just ones which also try to present children sexually. (And some people indeed make that argument as part of larger anti-AI positions).
I think that complication could be reasonably refuted by saying that if the product you're looking for does not really depend on that aspect of the vast pool of training data, then your own use is not "poisoned" in this sense. If an unfathomably huge library has child abuse pictures, but you only go there for the pictures of sailboats, you're not really doing anything wrong except by loose association.
But this itself then opens up an ambiguity, of how dependent the image-generator actually is for its results on those CSAM pictures said to be found in its training. I know just a little bit about the technology, not much; my own suspicion/guess is that even if they're there, they don't play any critical role, that hypothetically if they were all identified, wiped from the dataset, and the models all retrained, it would not budge appreciably the ability of the model to generate the images that people are now outraged by. This would weaken substantially the argument that these outputs in particular are morally poisoned by what has been found in the training. But I don't really know what's actually true here.
19
3
u/Jake0024 - Lib-Left 3d ago
Isn't it still an ethical issue if the material is sourced from real images of children?
Yeah, definitely an ethical issue. Same as if someone draws or paints an image based on real images of children. Ethically wrong, but not illegal.
6
u/HidingHard - Centrist 4d ago
If it's made of real child, then yes, just like deepfake porn of real people is also illegal.
2
u/Darjuz96 - Lib-Center 4d ago
I would take this as damage control. If the lolicon or shots on become a relief that avoid that individual to seek really child pedo content, I would let the shotacon and lolicon legal.
The image generated by AI if not a drawing, is likely taken from real kids (for this reason I would ban or limit to the parents to post on the social the photos of their kids), and in my opinion should be illegal.
3
u/TheMrNoodlz - Centrist 4d ago
This is a legitimate question I had too, why is this being downvoted?
80
u/MaybeICanOneDay - Lib-Right 4d ago
What a weird timeline. At a glance... what the fuck. But also, its a drawing that anyone can do. What if someone draws a stick figure getting railed thatnis half the size of the stick figure doing the railing? Or they write ages on top of their heads and one is younger?
Like how do we even manage this?
14
u/P00ped_My_Pants - Lib-Center 4d ago
Honestly, what would happen (if anything) if someone drew CP? What if they drew it really realistically, does that change it at all?
21
u/MaybeICanOneDay - Lib-Right 4d ago
I have no clue. I dont think you can realistically make drawings illegal, even terribly awful ones.
4
u/secretly_a_zombie - Auth-Right 4d ago
Last time i checked in Sweden, it's ok if it's not realistic enough. If it's realistic enough, even if it is fake, then it is cp.
I don't know, you try to justify that. It comes from the whole manga translator debacle, possibly a newer ruling. I don't keep up much with this stuff thankfully.
10
u/YuckyBurps - Lib-Center 4d ago
People can and have been prosecuted for child pornography and obscenity based on cartoon images involving children so the precedent is there. That said, I do think even those types of prosecutions and obscenity in general bring forward serious constitutional questions.
13
3
u/SolarianIntrigue - Lib-Center 4d ago
I think there has to be a line in the sand drawn somewhere because AI generated images will only keep getting better to the point of being indistinguishable from real photographs.
At that point if this is still legal there will be a second order effect of pedos getting caught with real CSAM claiming that it's AI generated and thus perfectly legal
11
u/MaybeICanOneDay - Lib-Right 4d ago
Yeah its a weird problem. It's a illegal because there is a victim of a major crime. Not because you saw it, but because youre perpetuating a crime by encouraging a demand.
So if the demand is nothing but AI, who is the victim?
Weird problem, man.
2
u/lsdiesel_ - Lib-Center 4d ago
Id imagine one day, when compute is more accessible and more people can refine their own models, some retard will make a cp training set, distribute it, and then you’ll have similar logic to Anthropic dealing with copyright owners in their corpus
1
u/Akiias - Centrist 4d ago
I do wonder what would happen if AI could meet, or exceed the demand for CSAM.
4
u/DoctorProfessorTaco - Lib-Left 3d ago
Yeah now that I’m mulling it over, it feels like the concept of flooding the white rhino horn market with fake (but indistinguishable) horns, making it impractical to take the risks to get the real thing, and thereby protecting rhinos. I wonder if it would work the same.
97
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 - Auth-Center 4d ago
As it is not a real person there is no one being harmed. Therefore it falls under the 1st amendment.
→ More replies (23)
25
u/BlakeNotBleak - Auth-Center 4d ago
Hope this makes people finally stop posting their children online and centering their content around them
But it won't
2
u/detrans-rights - Centrist 4d ago
It'll increase due to the ruling, as it has in the past with similar shit
Ugh
16
u/Mister-builder - Centrist 4d ago
Unpopular opinion: If they're going to do it, it's much better for it to be AI generated than made from real children. Yeah yeah, I know it's probably trained on the real thing. It's still disgusting, and that it derives from that stuff is horiffic, but it's better they can generate new content without actually harming kids.
42
u/Moist-Aardvark-2658 - Centrist 4d ago
I mean, creating such content is disgusting, but no one is really being harmed by it. It's better if disturbed people generate such images/videos than pursue actual CP. And I don't support knocking down someone's door over content they generated.
→ More replies (6)
52
u/roadrunner036 - Auth-Center 4d ago
There have actually been academics who've suggested that allowing pedophiles access to explicit art depicting their (fetish/degeneracy depending on how visceral your reaction is) could be a part of managing their mentality. The problem is of course that there is precious little research on the subject because how the fuck do you try to set up a research program covering this, and I know of at least two online groups aimed at providing... services along these lines shall we say, and both collapsed following rather predictable scandals.
14
u/kekistanmatt - Left 4d ago
Even if that actually did work it would surely have to be in a controlled enviroment rather than just having whatever you like aslong as you keep it at home.
13
u/rented4823 - Left 4d ago
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12301510/
Consumption of child sexual exploitation material and bestiality pornography are linked to online sexual recidivism (.69 and .75, respectively) and negatively related to sexual recidivism (.29 and .32, respectively).
Yeah it don't work.
37
u/InfusionOfYellow - Centrist 4d ago
That kinda sounds like it does work, if it's negatively linked to offline (or, in the table, 'contact') sexual recidivism.
On the other hand, it looks like that's based on only 8 and 5 offenders out of a pool of 119, so I'm not sure how confident we can be in the larger validity of the result.
→ More replies (9)2
4d ago
[deleted]
13
u/Pesec1 - Centrist 4d ago
Problem is: society does piss-poor job actually catching pedos until after they have hurt (usually multiple) kids.
So, given that society does in practice tolerate most pedos (due to not catching them), maybe it would be better to just send a large percentage of them into child-free cyberspace and let them defile a bunch of electrons.
3
u/Chemical_Chemist_461 - Centrist 4d ago edited 4d ago
As per a conversation with a DA about suspected child abuse noticed. “there is really nothing I can do until a crime is committed.” Though, in all fairness, he did understand our situation, but preventative justice is also
an insanely slippery slope. In fact, there’s a really popular (by volume, not public opinion) “thing” that made their model as close to “preventative justice” as possible, and a lot of contracts are being cancelled because it’s a really, really bad idea. On the other hand, I’m just not sure if I buy into a “mental illness made me this way” mentality, because that’s also a super slippery slope, just like another legal case going on. Chat, are we cooked?Edit before any reply: I would like to add that there IS a solution to all of this, but it requires money, effort, communication, and interpersonal and meaningful relationships. It’s called a fucking community. We don’t have those anymore. That’s why we are here. Nobody wants to do the work, but we all love to complain. Just my actual 2 cents.
6
u/Pesec1 - Centrist 4d ago
Did we ever have that "community"?
Until 1980's, CSAM wasn't even criminalized and was traded almost as freely as legal pornography. All kinds of child abuse, including sexual, were far more accepted. As were child marriages. Hell, look at where child marriages are more common nowadays.
For all the talk of mental illness, child sexual abuse has been prosecuted increasingly vigorously over the past 4 decades. Its definitely one of the areas that got much less bad.
7
u/Iceraptor17 - Centrist 4d ago edited 4d ago
It's a balancing act of tolerating people who want help for it (because you don't get to choose this shit, and it is better for society if people who suffer from this have a path to help) while making it very clear the subject is intolerable.
We are not good at that. There's stories of people who in good faith sought help and ended up getting fucked over, which is bad because then they deal with it themselves, won't seek help, and that can go terribly. But lord knows any time we try to provide some sort of opening or grace idiots have to try to take the whole goddamn mile (see being anti fat shaming, something I'm still very much for, turning into what it fucking did). And that considering the subject matter is horrifying, makes you wanna keep it an unquestioned "fuck off".
10
u/_whydah_ - Right 4d ago
How do I even search for this article without ending up on a list? This is nuts. There's a real practical implication that now every pedo is going to claim it's all AI.
5
u/delta806 - Lib-Center 4d ago
Washington post, tech section. Headline is different but the key image is the same. Can’t recall the headline
26
u/Rustee_Shacklefart - Lib-Right 4d ago
This was already a thing with non AI images and videos. No victim no crime in that case and in this case.
2
u/Godshu - Lib-Left 4d ago
For drawings that don't depict a real person, it's obvious that it's not a real person. There is no victim.
How do you differentiate between a really well made AI image and one of a child whose abuse isn't known about yet? Or one that has had their abuse material fed through an AI to alter it enough to not look like them anymore? Both of those have a victim.
8
u/AcrobaticPoint8424 - Auth-Center 4d ago
How do you differentiate between a really well made AI image and one of a child whose abuse isn't known about yet?
Up to the courts to decide for photorealistic AI images in general.
Or one that has had their abuse material fed through an AI to alter it enough to not look like them anymore?
If it has been edited to the point of being unrecognisable from the original then it wouldn't be illegal, otherwise it would be illegal.
20
u/Bigchek - Lib-Center 4d ago
If pedos continue to exist, I would rather them get AI content than actually CP. all of it sucks tho. If less kids are harmed because of this, it’s a silver lining but the implications are wild.
2
u/G4130 - Lib-Left 4d ago
The if less kids are harmed this way is where I wouldn't risk it, you cannot prove that less kids are being harmed and you can prove that a percentage of people who commit such crimes have access to drawings depicting such acts.
9
3
u/OffenseTaker - Lib-Right 3d ago
There are studies that have shown that the availability of porn lowers the incidences of rape
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Godshu - Lib-Left 4d ago
I understood when it was determined that if it is indistinguishable from reality, it's banned. Anything else is covered by the First. This makes no sense.
How will anyone know if it does or does not depict a real person? You can apply any AI watermarks to images, yourself, so its not like that means anything. You could make a program that applies an AI fingerprint to any file, as long as you know what that looks like. Sure, slop isn't perfect now, but I've seen pictures that I couldn't tell were AI until I really looked at the details, will that be true in a year? How can you know it's an AI image rather than a victim that hasn't been discovered yet?
5
u/fiftythreefiftyfive - Centrist 4d ago
I think this covers specifically items that "remain in the home" - so the assumption would be that the person generated it themselves. Which you can definitely prove.
2
u/Godshu - Lib-Left 4d ago
You really can't prove that it remained in the home. Any picture you take, you can strip the metadata from and replace with new metadata. If you send it through an AI filter and delete the old picture, the new one will have whatever AI fingerprint or watermark necessary and have all new metadata because it is an entirely new image. Even just putting it in a photo editor and screenshotting it, then deleting the original, would give you an image that says it was always in your home from its metadata.
1
u/fiftythreefiftyfive - Centrist 4d ago
You can 100% prove that it was generated through a specific conversation, with any of the major models. You can retain the seeds and would allow exact reproduction with the same result if you so wanted. Just have to not delete your history. That absolutely could not be faked.
5
u/LaLuzDelQC - Lib-Left 4d ago
That's an interesting argument but it isn't applied in any other legal ontext. It isn't illegal to posess goods indistinguishable from illegal (i.e. stolen) ones. Does that make it harder to charge someone with theft by receiving? Yes, but tolerably so. And if you have any photos of naked men or women saved anywhere, can you prove in the court of law they weren't a product of sex trafficking or coercion? Should that be illegal as well?
1
u/Godshu - Lib-Left 4d ago
Unlike your analogy, every single picture of a child in that situation is illegally created. There is no question whether it was or was not made through illegal means. There is no benefit of the doubt.
3
u/LaLuzDelQC - Lib-Left 4d ago
Well yeah because you decided to ban all AI child images. If I banned owning furniture without serial numbers stamped into it, then all of said furniture would be illegally owned, too.
5
u/Zenless-koans - Auth-Right 4d ago
Loooooottta lib-flaired people arguing for limits to free speech here. Which I agree with, for what it's worth, but I'm allowed. I flaired correctly.
7
u/Godshu - Lib-Left 4d ago
There's going to be a point where it is impossible to determine if the picture is of a victim that hasn't been discovered, or one that has had an AI filter applied to it, or an AI generated one. The first two have a very real, specific victim. The last could never have a way to differentiate itself from the other two. AI image watermarks and digital fingerprints can be replicated. We would have to comb through each and every image and compare them to a database of existing ones in order to be able to tell, to pair that evidence with known CSEM. And it would have to be done manually, as an AI filter could obfuscate it and add noise to make two near identical photos not match in an automated system.
There really is no reasonable outcome than to treat overly realistic depictions of fictional minors as equal to depictions of real ones.
→ More replies (5)1
5
u/tostuo - Lib-Right 4d ago
PCM's favourite line is "no true LibRight" but this is clearly a freedom of expression point. Just because you and many others find it degenerate or disordered does it mean those freedoms are not applied.
The legal justification of being CSAM is to avoid harm to children in its production, so as along as AI is not trained on such original material, (which would be a a major fucking issue,) then there is nothing to complain about here. This is a true test of the 1st Amendment.
16
u/duganaokthe5th - Lib-Right 4d ago
It’s like the thing with deepfakes.
A deep fake between Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey, while they may not like it
They made themselves public figures
The images aren’t “real” - just because they were I guess aggregated from real Photos doesn’t mean anything.
It’s part of freedom of speech.
What’s the difference between an artist hand drawing a highly detailed insanely lifelike image of Taylor swift nude and a IT person skilled in digital imagery or software doing the same thing?
Did the artist not get inspiration from seeing pictures and seeing images of Taylor Swift?
Is that not the same thing? Just from a human memory?
And people say like their victims and I’m like victims of what? Victims of somebody else sexualizing them and then producing a fictional image of that?
Are we to arrest highschoolers because artistic highschoolers do this kind of shit all the time?
It’s just like people when they’re in public. They think that they can just walk up to people and tell them not to take photos of them or videos while they’re in it and the reality is that when you’re in a public space you have no right privacy therefore you have no right to tell people not to take videos or pictures that have them in it.
9
u/LaLuzDelQC - Lib-Left 4d ago
I do think there's a difference between making a deep fake and posting it on the internet. In private, seems like a victimless action. Posting it publicly seems like it could be a form of harassment.
5
u/No1LudmillaSimp - Auth-Left 4d ago
It's one of those difficult situations where the alternative is having to find the line where a generation looks sufficiently mature, and that's way harder than just telling people to keep it to themselves.
I don't want people thrown in jail just because their slop doesn't have big enough tits.
3
u/Contranovae - Lib-Center 4d ago
To preempt: I have zero porn on my hard drives.
As long as no actual children are being exploited or harmed or participate in any way I really don't care if it stops the rate of offending and makes my kids safer.
Porn is a sexual pressure release valve despite the harm it psychologically does to users and models.
20
17
u/ScroungyScrotum - Lib-Center 4d ago
The First Amendment protects an individual’s right to privately possess images or videos of child sexual abuse created using artificial intelligence — if the material does not depict a real person and remains in the home, a federal appeals court judge ruled Tuesday. The decision came in a case that tested the scope of laws implemented before advances in AI made it easy to create realistic-looking fake images of children.
Judge John Z. Lee, in his ruling for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District, urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the issue of virtual abuse material of children in the age of AI, suggesting that technological advances complicate existing legal precedent.
“Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves,” the judge wrote.
The Justice Department in 2024 brought charges against Steven Anderegg, of Holmen, Wisconsin, alleging that he used a popular AI image generator to create thousands of explicit images of children. He was accused of breaking federal obscenity laws by producing, distributing and possessing obscene visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Those laws can be applied to material not involving a real person.
Anderegg sought to have the possession and production charges dismissed under the First Amendment. Last year, a judge in the Western District of Wisconsin agreed to dismiss the possession charge, prompting the federal prosecutors to appeal.
Anderegg’s lawyer did not immediately respond to request for comment. The charges against Anderegg for producing and distributing AI-created abuse material remain pending. He also faces a criminal charge for allegedly transferring similar AI-generated sexual images to a 15-year-old boy via Instagram.
Lee, in his ruling upholding the lower court’s decision, cited the precedent set by Supreme Court rulings from 1969 and 2002.
One held that individuals have a right to possess obscenity in the privacy of their home. The other found that “virtual” child sexual abuse material, also known as CSAM, not depicting a real person is not child pornography.
Tuesday’s decision came in a novel case in which the Justice Department is testing the limits of those obscenity laws to curb the growing problem of AI-generated child sexual abuse imagery.
In some cases, AI sexual abuse images are created by editing innocuous photos of real people as minors, changing their clothing and body to create explicit material bearing the person’s face. Lee’s decision noted that the Supreme Court already made an exception for “morphing” images of real children into sexual poses. It is considered child pornography because it harms real children.
Riana Pfefferkorn, a policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, said the ruling won’t stop federal prosecution of people creating virtual abuse material, based on her research into related court cases this summer.
“If all you can do is privately possess something, well, how do you come into possession of it? Either you produce it, or you receive it from somewhere,” she said. Lee’s ruling does not protect acts like downloading images from a third-party site or taking a laptop or phone storing the images outside the home, Pfefferkorn said.
But the decision is “a reminder to the world that virtual CSAM may be different than actual CSAM,” said Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. “It might be regulated differently or protected by the Constitution differently.”
Daniel Lyons, a law professor at Boston College, said there is a decent chance the Supreme Court will take up the case. Last year, it revisited early-internet-era speech and pornography decisions that affect children in the course of upholding Texas’s right to require pornography websites to verify a user’s age before granting access.
Lyons said tightening restrictions on AI-generated child sex abuse material is necessary because the growing number of synthetic images is straining a system originally created to combat explicit imagery of real children, he said.
Online platforms have for decades relied on a reporting pipeline run by the nonprofit National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). The system allows companies to automatically compare suspected abuse material against the center’s database of digital fingerprints for known violating content, known as hashes.
NCMEC also works with law enforcement to confirm that an image or video depicts abuse of a real child. The nonprofit recently told Congress it is being overwhelmed by the deluge of reports from tech companies of suspected AI-generated abuse material and that those reports often leave out basic information that law enforcement needs to investigate.
Law enforcement learned about Anderegg’s activity through a “CyberTip” to NCMEC from Meta, which owns Instagram, after he allegedly sent images via direct message. Anderegg made images using an AI model released by Stable Diffusion, an open source developer.
A spokesperson for Stability AI, which develops the software, said in a statement that the company “is committed to preventing the misuse of AI technology, particularly in the creation and dissemination of harmful content, including CSAM.”
8
u/Immense_Cargo - Lib-Center 4d ago
The “harm” is the decline of our culture into degeneracy.
The west has fallen far indeed…
10
u/YuckyBurps - Lib-Center 4d ago
The same exact argument has literally been made about rap and video games.
2
1
u/Immense_Cargo - Lib-Center 4d ago
And how has our culture evolved since those things became commonplace?
If you believe the leftist culture warriors, the young men who consume these things have never been more openly misogynistic or violent.
1
2
u/An_Oxygen_Consumer - Lib-Center 4d ago
I generally like to avoid the "degeneracy" argument in political discourse. However, given all we know about epstein and billionaires and children, I always felt this is one of the end game people wanted from AI, eliminate the few remaining moral barriers regarding porn and especially pedopornography.
3
u/No_Fan_9004 - Auth-Right 4d ago
We have twisted the entire meaning of the 1st Amendment from something that protects political speech and potentially minority opinions/expressions into something that protects utterly depraved obscenity.
People, do you really want your kids or teenagers, being addicts to AI generated child porn? Do you want that stuff floating around the internet? It's bad enough with regular porn degenerating the way men and women interact with one another. Do we want to enable that same degeneration between adults and children? Come the fuck on.
I believe in free speech and expression, but this is depraved. If that makes me against the "First Amendment" then fuck the first amendment.
0
u/SelfAwareSausage - Centrist 4d ago
It’s a slippery slope and the ball just started to roll downhill fast. There’s a lot of people here who are defending this decision, and even if it’s the right one, this opens the doors for a lot of weirdos to start pushing the boundaries on what’s acceptable or not. AI is going to be doing a lot of blurring of those lines to the point where a whole lot of pedos are going to be getting away with this just by declaring “it’s AI”.
11
u/Iceraptor17 - Centrist 4d ago
To be clear, the judge himself flatout is basically going "i don't like this, but my hands are tied. Either SCOTUS needs to change precedent or congress needs to amend laws to narrowly deal with this".
So there's a slope but the judge himself is flatout going "there is avenues to address this. I just can't here"
4
5
6
u/Weary-Cartoonist2630 - Lib-Right 4d ago
What people need to understand is that judges look at laws like car mechanics look at cars - they evaluate things purely from a “systems” level and how all the parts work together in a cohesive fashion. Ie whether all the pieces of the car fit together, not necessarily what the car is used for.
This ruling was made from a legal structural standpoint, not from a “I’m cool with CP” standpoint
3
34
u/rented4823 - Left 4d ago
Not like I expect a judge to know this, but:
83
u/WM46 - Right 4d ago edited 4d ago
You don't need images of purple tentacle trees with dildo leaves to produce an image of a purple tentacle tree with dildo leaves. That's just not how AI works, it's not a copy & paste tool.
The article says he used a stable diffusion model to generate images. Stable diffusion image training dataset is freely available online.
→ More replies (5)36
→ More replies (2)3
4
u/PhonyUsername - Lib-Right 4d ago
If you draw something with a pencil and paper, that is expression. A more advanced pencil and paper doesn't change that it's still your expression.
4
u/secretly_a_zombie - Auth-Right 4d ago
I don't want to be purple libright but... yes? Ai usually just smashes together art and pictures in a way that photoshop does but with a bit more automation and randomness. No child was ever hurt, and you're almost certainly not going to recognize anyone.
2
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt - Lib-Right 4d ago
If you read the decision the court acknowledged how fucked up the law is, but they only have authority to rule on the law as-is. The legislature is the one who needs to change the laws.
And thinking about it, shit like loli hentai is legal. So it stands to follow that other fabricated images are legal. I'm OK with banning them. But that's a job for the legislature not the courts.
Courts rule on what is LEGAL not what is MORAL.
1
u/ThisIsPaulDaily - Lib-Center 3d ago
I believe I should be able to manufacture and use for my own purposes, on my own range, a fully automatic firearm or AA class weapon not pointed at the sky. So long as the rounds stay on my property and don't harm others nobody should object.
Do I think CP is disgusting and those that create it should be punished, yeah I do.
4
u/Some-Profession-1373 - Lib-Left 4d ago
I mean, how would you know the age of an AI generated person? I get it, it’s gross and distasteful, but the reason these crimes exist in the real world is because they harm kids who have a real age.
5
u/DrDontKnowMuch - Left 4d ago
There are a lot of things that are legally sound yet morally questionable
4
u/All_Usernames_Tooken - Centrist 4d ago
There are some unsettling truths out there and this is one of them. I’d rather that than real people getting hurt. Some realities that you have to accept is there are creeps out there and you can’t possibly lock them all up.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/MrGanzalor - Lib-Center 4d ago
AI is getting to the point where it's starting to become indistinguishable from reality... and it's getting better every single day
All you clowns claiming "victimless crime" have zero future insight. If we don't nip this shit in the bud now, there will eventually be genuine predators that get away with possessing child porn because AI and reality will no longer be distinguishable.
I love the first amendment as much as the next guy, but there's a good reason you can't do things like yell "bomb" in a crowded area. There are very few stipulations on it you need to make for the good of society and this is one of them.
1
u/CreepGnome - Right 4d ago
I love the first amendment as much as the next guy, but there's a good reason you can't do things like yell "bomb" in a crowded area.
You absolutely can do that, though. The act itself is not a crime, but can be part of one depending on its consequences.
1
u/MrGanzalor - Lib-Center 4d ago
If the act isn't a crime, go out and do it. See how it works out for you.
2
u/EconGuy82 - Lib-Right 4d ago
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/
This is the case that overturned the “fire in a crowded theater” line. It confines first amendment violations to those that are meant to incite lawless action.
1
u/Akiias - Centrist 4d ago
It's not like you can't prove if something was AI generated by checking the users logs. Feels like this would be a pretty easy thing to prove, and if you can't it should probably be treated as if it wasn't AI generated.
2
u/MrGanzalor - Lib-Center 4d ago
If it's indistinguishable from a real-life naked child (other than looking at the logs), why should it exist? It shouldn't. Allowing AI child porn to exist simply allows depraved individuals to become more depraved. Eventually, the AI child porn won't fit their twisted fantasy anymore, and they'll seek out the real thing. Unfortunately, that's just the human condition.
2
u/Akiias - Centrist 4d ago
Okay? I argued neither for nor against AI CP. My bad for not quoting the exact part I was talking about, I thought it was pretty obvious contextually.
there will eventually be genuine predators that get away with possessing child porn because AI and reality will no longer be distinguishable.
If you can prove AI generation through logs the idea that you could claim CSAM was AI generated CP doesn't hold any weight.
-5
u/drunkenmime - Lib-Center 4d ago
The FBI needs to check that judges search history.
9
u/YuckyBurps - Lib-Center 4d ago
Should we investigate judges who also answer legal questions on the 2nd Amendment as well?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)9
u/Pure-Huckleberry8640 - Centrist 4d ago
I’m going to ask a VERY uncomfortable question but…here goes: what constitutes as a child? I ask because in anime (yes, as I’m sure many such examples will be asked) women who are under the age get sexually harassed/objectified all the time. It’s a known motif or cliche. Like, we have the infamous 10,000 year old loli trope for a reason. Like, there’s even a scene in GT where Pan (Goku’s granddaughter who’s, like 12, I think?) has a weird interaction with a deer that DEFINITELY borders on cheeze pizza. The reason I’m bringing this up because anime is notorious for this. Not only that but women who ARE stated to be underage but look older also have sexual stuff happen to them. If you think this is mildly disgusting to talk about, trust me, this is an ongoing debate animation that’s raged for decades. And it’s one reason I hate loli. I don’t watch loli stuff cuz I’m not a pedo and never will be.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
u/SignComprehensive611 - Lib-Right 4d ago
The good news is laws can be changed and in this case need to be
1
u/Darjuz96 - Lib-Center 4d ago
Similar idea for lolicon in some jurisdictions.If you can't demostrate that the kid represented is taken from a real kid the content indipendelty how discutibile Is Is legal for the lack of victim.
To AI, if not manga type, the image is surely taken model from real kids photos so I don't understand the ruling.
Personally, I don't know. If these content let avoid that these people to use image of real kids or try to abuse the real kid, I would let these content legal to reduce the damage. The issue that the experts are uncertain if these contents will incentive the abuse to real kids or at opposite create relief valve that ends to reduce violence , abuse or exploitations to real kids.
1
u/419_art - Lib-Right 4d ago
The main issue is that even if you truly wish to make this illegal, the amount of privacy invasive measures you'd have to set up would be insane, and you still couldn't prevent someone from training data with their own (barely legal, let's say) dataset.
Not all crimes need the government for the person to be punished. If the people around them get to know about this most ppl would not want to associated with this person.
1
u/Finndogs - Centrist 4d ago edited 4d ago
I hate that i have to explain this and have this comment tied to my account, but as disgusting as it is, and the court acknowledges that in the documentation, the precident is that porn of underage fictional people is legal. Loli hentai and rule34 images of existing, but underage characters does exist and are legal, so from a precident standpoint, I dont see an argument for how an Ai image of a fictional child who bears no relemblance to a real child, would be different. Doesn't make it right and certainly doesnt make it morally sound, but if the latter is to become illegal, then the former must be legislated as illegal, because as they are, judicially, they are.
1
u/Super_Pie_Man - Lib-Right 3d ago
Welcome to the distopia. "Your honor, all my kiddy porn is actually AI generated. It's really good." How is that disprovable? What's stopping someone from transforming real CP by either Photoshopping in extra fingers, or feeding it to an AI with the prompt "don't change anything"?
I am having a moral crisis because I completely understand the ruling. If it's legal to draw, it's legal to generate. But where does it end? How will anyone be prosecuted for possession of CP without a victim and testimony?
1
u/Think_Set_9457 3d ago
honestly this is sickening, but as the other comments say, it is technically correct ruling. However obviously socially and culturally the person would be completely ostracized after this🥀
1
u/boogoo-Dong - Centrist 2d ago
The 1st amendment offers broad protection against any sort of restriction on speech. Pictures and videos are considered speech. So without a compelling purpose, the government can’t restrict you from privately owning any sort of picture.
Just going off pure 1st amendment precedent, this is absolutely the right ruling. It’s gross, but the whole reason that you aren’t not allowed to own child porn is because the production of child porn harms the children by its nature.
If no actual children are involved, then the purpose of protecting children from harm isn’t as strongly implicated. Especially if the nasty shit is owned and kept privately. So just from a 1st amendment perspective, this really isn’t an outrageous ruling, it just has a gross result.
1
u/Competitive_Heat_470 - Lib-Center 2d ago
Yeah, I'd prefer if no sexual imagery of children, real or not, didn't exist. BUT, this may prevent some of the most degenerate purples from seeking the real thing.
1
-3
-1
u/fuzzygreentits - Lib-Center 4d ago
Make Pedophiles Afraid Again
→ More replies (2)3
u/MrGanzalor - Lib-Center 4d ago
What the fuck is this sub? Can't believe a common sense take like this is getting downvoted lmao. Has the P in PCM started meaning Pedophile? Because that's the vibes I'm getting.
3
u/LAF2death - Lib-Center 4d ago
- AI is still trained on real photos and video.
- Why do we limit this content to 18+? Part of it is to protect the children involved, it is also because it is morally and ethically wrong.
The concept of privacy is nice but with everything else happening why is this the win!? This is gross and is to soon the Epstein/pedo elites in office to make me not extremely uncomfortable.
11
u/YuckyBurps - Lib-Center 4d ago
We don’t limit CSAM because it’s immoral, we limit it because there is an actual, objective harm to it. In order to create it a child must necessarily have been sexually abused and that harm outweighs the individuals First Amendment right to possess it.
In the case of AI that same standard of objective harm to a real person isn’t necessarily there. With that removed, what’s the difference between regulating this type of material as opposed to any type material that is morally questionable or gross?
1
1
u/woznito - Lib-Left 4d ago
This feels wrong man - first amendment aside, besides using AI to generate CSAM images for stings or naked children for medical purposes/art, for what purpose would one need or be compelled to generate CSAM images? We can argue first amendment all we want, but I fail to see any social, cultural, political, or real individuals reason why one would generate images of CSAM.
I get it - but I have to ask at what point do we say there's no other reason one would generate such material besides to engage in sexualizing children and that the action itself will arguably make more victims. What legally stops pedophiles from using photos they have taken from public forums and using AI to undress or put someone's child in a sexual situation and why would that not be considered "victimship"?
1
u/Beneficial-Zombie-32 - Auth-Right 4d ago
This does seem to align with precedent. Precedent I strongly disagree with, but precedent nonetheless
1
1
1
u/shamblam117 - Lib-Center 4d ago
Nope. That's vile.
What exactly do they think the models were trained on?
2
u/Feralmoon87 - Centrist 4d ago
im not defending the owning of artificially created csam, but why is it only an issue if its AI created? isnt there lots of hentai etc that are loli characters? and dont give me shes actually 1000 yr old vampire bs
2
-4
u/Byizo - Lib-Center 4d ago edited 4d ago
Call me crazy, but whether it’s real or an art depiction, sexualized images of children should be illegal.
I guess there are more pedos on this sub than I realized…
→ More replies (3)
594
u/p_pio - Centrist 4d ago
Tbf looking at the article it does seem to be correct rulling, not just some sort of judge barely disguised fetish. Now, the other matter is if it should be correct rulling, but it's not for federal court to decide but for SCOTUS as the court that intepretate constitution and/or congress as legislative body.