1y ago

Study shows AI image-generators being trained on explicit photos of children

www.independent.co.uk Study shows AI image-generators being trained on explicit photos of children

Hidden inside the foundation of popular artificial intelligence image-generators are thousands of images of child sexual abuse, according to a new report that urges companies to take action to address a harmful flaw in the technology they built

Study shows AI image-generators being trained on explicit photos of children::Hidden inside the foundation of popular artificial intelligence image-generators are thousands of images of child sexual abuse, according to a new report that urges companies to take action to address a harmful flaw in the technology they built

You're viewing a single thread.

25 comments

Honest question, why is this a problem rather than a solution?
If these kids don't exist, and having those fake pictured make some people content, what's the harm?
Kinda reminds me of furries getting horny over wolf drawings, who cares?
- I agree with you in instances where it's not generating a real person. But there are cases where people use tools like this to generate realistic-looking but fake images of actual, specific real-life children. This is of course abusive to that child. And it's still bad when it's done to adults too, it's sort of a form of defamation.
  I really do hope legislation around this issue is narrowly tailored to actual abuse similar to what I described above, but given the "protect the children" nonsense they constantly moan about just about every technology including end to end encryption I'm not very optimistic.
  Another thing I wonder about, is if AI could get so realistic that it becomes impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone with actual CSAM (where the image/victim isn't known so they can't prove it that way) is guilty, since any image could plausibly be fake. This of course is an issue far beyond just child abuse. It would probably discredit video footage for robberies and that sort of thing too. We really are venturing into the unknown and government isn't exactly know for adapting to technology...
  But I think you're mostly correct, because the moral outrage on social media seems to be about the entire concept of fake sexual depictions of minors existing at all, rather than only about abusive ones
- Did you just compare furries to pedophiles? One of those is harmless, the other is not.
  
  Ironically, I was giving them as an example of something OK. My point just went over your head.
  
  No, it didn't but it seems like mine went over yours. Furries usually are fine outside a few bad actors but pedophiles are mentally ill and should not be allowed them to generate AI CSAM just to satisfy them. They should be seeking help, not jerking it to fake kiddies.
  
  People used to say trans people were mentally ill. If they're not harming actual children, what's it to you what their fetish is?
  
  Stop trying to justify your mental illness. You need to seek help if you think fucking kids is okay.
  
  I don't think that. Obviously actually having sex with children is wrong. I was saying that generating AI child porn with no actual harm to children involved can't be logically argued to be immoral.
  
  And there it is. Your problem is you equate furries to pedophiles because you think furries are into bestiality. Thanks for proving you're an idiot.

25 comments