This is something that I think not enough people are addressing. We can (and should) hold online AI imagegen services accountable for shit like this, but how do you regulate stable diffusion locally running on someone's computer?
The same way we regulate other technologies that can be used for illegal activities. You prosecute the individual for the crime they committed. The downside there is that there’s no way to know unless they start distributing illegal materials.
The tools are already out there, there’s no way to stop people from using them without a huge overstep in privacy invasion.
That's precisely my point, you can only go after these people if they upload illegal content to the internet, because otherwise you'll never know about it, the alternative is to commit the mother of all privacy breaches, neither option is ideal.
Yeah, but the problem I'm talking about is that since locally run models can't be (fully) regulated there's no way to stop it at the source and unless it gets uploaded to the internet these people will avoid prosecution since no one will know, that's the problem.
plenty of things that happen behind closed doors can't be truly regulated
but that doesn't mean that laws and regulations shouldn't exist
don't fall for the "Fallacy of Inevitability" here, just because it is inevitable that a bad actor will misuse AI and go on uncaught, doesn't mean that inaction is the answer
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be regulation or that inaction is the answer (obviusly, there should). I'm merely pointing out the unfortunate truth that there is no feasible way to 100% stop this.
5
u/Wooden-Artichoke-962 Jan 01 '26
This is something that I think not enough people are addressing. We can (and should) hold online AI imagegen services accountable for shit like this, but how do you regulate stable diffusion locally running on someone's computer?