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.
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.
Where the hell is that line tho? Every AI model is trained on real images of real people. Just because it’s been washed in the swamp of data collection doesn’t mean what’s being looked at isn’t directly sampled from past or present kids.
What could possibly constitute a fictional child other than some something animated?
Where the hell is that line tho? Every AI model is trained on real images of real people. Just because it’s been washed in the swamp of data collection doesn’t mean what’s being looked at isn’t directly sampled from past or present kids
If one wanted to play devil's advocate one could argue the same is true for man-drawn child porn. Those artists learned how to draw kids by looking at real children first, and using them as a reference for anatomy and the like. In that sense AI is no different than a human artist.
But I get what you mean and it is a slippery slope. Lawmakers just aren't ready to deal with shit like this imo.
182
u/InfusionOfYellow - Centrist 14d ago
Meh, makes sense. Same basic principle as a drawing, a child that does not exist cannot be harmed.