86
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/pyschosoul 2d ago
There is also an active court case and investigation into elons grok with claims it used real CSAM to train its models on.
To all the people saying that it was trained on real material and should be illegal because of that I agree, but do we hold the person who thought they were creating fake CSAM via ai responsible or the company?
Not saying generating ai CSAM is good, just that if they dont know its based off real material
11
u/pm_me_fibonaccis 1d ago
If it's created using data derived from real children it should be legislated as if it was real children.
4
u/Aniki_Simpson 1d ago
I agree, but should be and are now are two entirely different legal issues. I agree with the judge's ruling. I also agree with what he supposedly stressed afterwards, which is that lawmakers need to do their job and make it illegal.
3
u/pm_me_fibonaccis 1d ago
Oh I completely agree. I believe his hands were tied here.
1
u/Aniki_Simpson 4h ago
Yeah. It's sad that it should even be a question. You would think a law such as this would pass unanimously, but more often than not other more nefarious things get shoved into laws that people think are guaranteed to pass, and as a result get shot down.
7
u/MistyFoxtail 1d ago
I say both. People who want to generate ai CSAM are still sick in the head.
1
u/Caffeywasright 1d ago
Yes agreed. However I would argue the same is true for people who write detailed novels about murder and those fuckers are in every book shop.
1
u/willrw1001 1d ago
If a significant share of murder fiction readers went on to hoard excessive amounts of murder fiction and commit murders it would be
0
2
u/RubberDuckieMidrange 1d ago
Yeah, the case against Grok using images of real people isn't as clear cut as we'd like it to be either. No artist has ever drawn the human form with pencil or paint, without basing it on people they saw. We draw from our real world experiences with all generation of art by the Human hand. You paint a landscape? You are basing it on the real mountains, lakes, fields and forests you have seen. You draw an alien landscape? You are still adapting what you've actually seen into what you think might be possible. While I think the people who possessed the CSAM that got fed to Grok are probably liable for possession at the very least, Grok producing adaptations of that work probably isn't illegal. Provided that the subjects are sufficiently different as to be different people... I frankly don't have the legal training to say.
Personally I think it's tough. You (Society) want to protect the vulnerable, and you should probably put some rules in place about CSAM generation even in the fictional context. But that does skirt very close to the old morality laws. And the Marquis de Sade still has his works published. I'd not envy the person who has to draw that particular legal line.
1
u/Penguininalaska 1d ago
How about both? If I go and buy crack from a dealer and we get caught they aren’t going “welp, which do we arrest!!!”
1
u/DazB1ane 1d ago
Anyone using AI at this point should already know it’s all based on real and stolen content
1
u/DistinctSpirit5801 1d ago
Holding the company accountable would solve the issue on a systemic basis
If ai executives were put behind bars for having child porn as part of their AI LLM training database that would protect far more children than Elon musk’s preferred legal approach of don’t blame us just blame the user
AI companies should be required by law to audit their database and LLM training materials to check to see if CSAM exists and if so to actively remove such materials from their systems
15
3
u/LordKlavier 1d ago
Thank you for actually being reasonable here. It certainly is morally wrong, but the implications of making it illegal are pretty terrible for other first-amendment rights
8
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/kreativegaming 2d ago
The loophole could have been closed a long time ago when things like the book and movie Lolita were released.
2
u/cherenk0v_blue 1d ago
Do you think Nabokov's Lolita is an endorsement of rape and child abuse?
Or are you saying any depiction of rape and child abuse is not ok? Should the movie Spotlight be illegal?
0
u/kreativegaming 1d ago
I think there are better ways to broach the subject than to make a movie about a dude who marries a woman just to fawn over her underage daughter.
A story about a detective suspecting something. Finding his journal, saving the girl can still tell the same story without watching a 40 year old creeping on a 12 year old for 2 hours.
3
3
u/East-Response6672 1d ago
Because god forbid a piece of art make you uncomfortable. The revulsion and contempt you feel for Humboldt is the message, if it were as sterile as a procedural it would be worthless.
0
u/kreativegaming 1d ago
I dont mind art making people uncomfortable, I rather enjoyed the butterfly effect. Nothing better than going back in time and murdering sick weirdos.
2
u/Hot_Mud_5708 1d ago
No, it's not. In no free country should anything totally fake with zero victims be turned into a crime. If so then movies with murder plots would have to be a crime.
1
u/RubberDuckieMidrange 1d ago
Yeah but you'd be naive to think this is the problem with this. The fact is, the existence of these works, and the fact that Grok was trained on existing criminal material is problematic. Why hasn't Grok provided enough information on the people who provided him with CSAM to train him in the first place, that the authorities were able to intervene? There are crimes here that should be answered to.
3
3
u/jupiterkansas Community Regular 1d ago
I haven't seen AI do anything you couldn't do with Photoshop with a little more work. AI is the boogie man at the moment, but I can make child porn with my pencil if I wanted to. You can't make a law against that.
-1
u/aspghost 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes you can. That's illegal in many places. Edit/ they hated Jesus because he told the truth
2
2
u/ckspike 1d ago
Its not illegal anywhere in the US due to the Supreme court ruling that as long as no real minor is involved it is free speech so you can draw whatever you want. If you actually read things you would see that is the entire justification for this ruling.
→ More replies (6)1
6
u/Naive-Anteater8321 2d ago
While I find the idea of creating such content abhorrent, describing/showing such things is legal in art and books, it’s a fine line I agree, but we need better definitions if we want to make this illegal. Sadly I agree that legally speaking this was the correct call. That said I don’t think we should allow realistic AI generated images at all, it only seems to cause problems. I’m prepared for the downvotes.
2
u/Stunning_Ad_7658 2d ago
Honestly we just need to look at how people are using ai to make revenge porn of people. I agree there should always be some kind of uncanny valley to it.
1
u/BVSEDGVD 1d ago
Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag on that one. The tech exists and legislation only fuels the shady ones that will provide it despite the laws
2
u/greenskye 2d ago
I think art and fictional content should generally be protected. Thought crimes absolutely should not be a thing. People can have horrible, fucked up thoughts and create content off of that. You can shun them, kick them off your private platform, refuse to support them in any way sure. But making that sort of expression illegal is just a fast track to getting LGBT and other marginal groups heavily targeted and labeled as sex offenders.
That said there's a clear distinction surrounding anything that looks realistic. If it could confuse a reasonable person that it could be a real person, that has a real impact in eroding our ability to seek justice for real crimes. That's an action that has a real world consequence that affects other people and is justified to (in limited scope) restrict our freedom of speech.
But a blanket ban on content simply because it's gross and horrible despite being completely fictional is not something we should be supporting, lest we immediately see people try to redefine what's gross and horrible to a broader scope.
1
u/Vast-Breakfast-1201 1d ago
The furor over pedophilia in general is not unintentional.
It is not a coincidence that they tried to equate gender identity with exposing children to inappropriate material, and then equating that with pedophilia. In some states even just saying that, as a woman you have a wife or vice versa is enough.
It's also not unintentional for people to be calling for extrajudicial (literally in this case) doxxing or straight up murder. I get it - being a pedophile is not good.
The fact of the matter is, it's bad because it other people (whether it's deepfakes or something else). If it doesn't hurt other people - the state loses its mandate. I mean we used to have laws against sodomy - what happens consensually in a bedroom. And the logic is exactly the same.
Frankly the state should only be regulating issues which clearly encroach on the rights of someone else.
2
u/Hot_Mud_5708 1d ago
The Constitution is what protects us from people implementing what they think should or shouldn't be allowed for their neighbors, and thank god for it.
1
1
1
u/Significant_Donut967 1d ago
Taking someone's literal child and making a very realistic nude is a far cry from a hand drawn diagram or crime scene photos.
0
u/RubberDuckieMidrange 1d ago
Tell us you don't know the details of the case without saying them words I guess. The specific reason this wasn't possession of CSAM is that the children were entirely fictional (As in, not based on photos of real children, cause you didn't catch the use of fictional in the first comment). Do I think it's still something that should be prosecuted, yeah probably, but the law doesn't actually criminalize this, in the same way that writing about book about murder isn't murdering a person.
1
u/DistinctSpirit5801 1d ago
There should be regular audits required for making sure AI companies remove CSAM from their database and LLM platforms
That is the main thing legislators should address
Another thing that should be required is requiring Ai companies to disclose the source material for every prompt
These changes would help keep children safe
Keeping children safe from sexual abuse is the highest priority
1
u/RubberDuckieMidrange 1d ago
Should the same be true of Libraries?
1
u/DistinctSpirit5801 1d ago
It’s already illegal for someone to produce a CSAM book
Libraries would already be prohibited from adding such a book to their shelves
In fact libraries already audit books before adding them to the bookshelves for a variety of reasons
1
u/RubberDuckieMidrange 1d ago
Sure, and you'd extend this ban to AI generated CSAM books?
1
u/DistinctSpirit5801 1d ago
Basically yes As protection of children should be the highest priority
1
u/RubberDuckieMidrange 1d ago
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?
1
u/DistinctSpirit5801 1d ago
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
1
u/RubberDuckieMidrange 1d ago
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.
1
1
u/fatgat69 2d ago
No. If he actually thinks that using illegal images to make amalgamated copies is protected by the first amendment then he is too stupid to be a judge.
2
u/sithlord98 1d ago
The 2002 ruling that "virtual" CSAM can't be prohibited by government would disagree with you. Just because you think something should work a certain way doesn't mean it actually does.
0
u/fatgat69 1d ago
The government is run by pedophiles and always has been. Of course they don't want us prosecuting them.
1
u/sithlord98 1d ago
You're welcome to see it that way, but this judge did nothing wrong in correctly interpreting the law. It's not his fault the law is what it is.
→ More replies (2)1
u/VoidJuiceConcentrate 1d ago
Yeah this lol. The Judge is against it morally, but legally the existence of artificial CSAM isn't defined or bound as much as you would like.
The judges recommendation to close the loophole legally is where people should be focusing, not that the judge said "fake CSAM OK", he said "fake CSAM not blocked by law, so someone make the damn law".
1
u/SheepherderSad4872 1d ago
"Against in morally" and "criminal" are two different things. Within criminal, there are different levels of criminality. The less-than-nuanced distinction is:
- Real CASM is created by hurting children.
- AI CASM is created without hurting real children.
Most reasonably people will be against both morally, but I see no way to equate the two. The former should, unqualified, result in long prison sentences, sex offender registries, and so on.
To me, the latter is more complex and nuanced:
- Should a confused teenager who creates anything with AI as a one-off spend the next decade in prison? Where is the threshold?
- Is this a felony or misdemeanor?
- Is the better outcome prison? Treatment? Something else?
I don't like the prison-industrial complex in the US. Prison keeps people from contributing productively to society. It's a school for how to be a criminal. And it costs a ton of money. If I were dictator, it'd be a punishment of last resort. Real CASM qualifies since it prevents people from hurting real kids.
I don't have an answer here. Fundamentally, the judge is right that this is something new, doesn't fit within the existing statute, and is a discussion that needs to happen.
One can argument AI CASM is to real CASM as manslaughter is to murder. And if you don't have a statute punishing manslaughter, the murder one shouldn't be conveniently expanded to fit.
1
u/VoidJuiceConcentrate 1d ago
Dawg I wouldn't take the position of defending any CSAM.
At any rate, you're trying to argue with me about something someone else said. Find that someone else and argue with them about it.
1
u/SheepherderSad4872 1d ago edited 1d ago
I did not take that position.
Coincidentally, when I took similar positions after 9/11, I was constantly labeled as "with the terrorists." People ignored on knee jerk, because people are dumb. Now you have your gitmos, Afghanistans, and universal surveillance.
0
u/PanchoPanoch 2d ago
If you know how AI works though, you can argue that he is in fact wrong. AI doesn’t actually generate content out of the blue. It is an algorithm trained on existing content whether it’s written, video, photos, etc. So, that means that any of the content generated will be based off real individuals. With that in mind, it should be illegal by its own ruling.
3
1
u/greenskye 2d ago
It doesn't need actual pictures in its training data to generate something like this. Simply having clothed pictures of kids and naked pictures of adults is enough to allow it to extrapolate into csam territory. Honestly that's the whole point of this sort of AI over earlier tech. Also that doesn't even include the fact that simply having a picture of a naked kid doesn't make it csam. Medical photos and family photos would be completely legal examples and then could be twisted by the AI into a horrific output despite nothing in its training data being illegal.
Now given how the training data was actually acquired I don't doubt that there actually was illegal content in it simply because these companies didn't actually care enough to be careful about what they were gathering. If we want to screw them for the wall for that I'm all for it.
1
u/PanchoPanoch 1d ago
I’m not even making any claims regarding the legality of the inputs. Whether the inputs are legal or not doesn’t change the fact that the output is CSAM and is based on images of real people - legal or not.
1
u/greenskye 1d ago
I think it's important from a rights perspective to be clear about what we're banning. Whatever we come up with here will be fully utilized to target vulnerable groups like LGBT.
If the goal is to ban realistic looking images because they confuse and interfere with actual child abuse that has a clear limit and clear impact that's definable and something that could be decided on as a reasonable limit of free speech.
Likewise I think it's already illegal to create explicit images in another real person's likeness, minor or adult. That's an attack on someone's reputation and character and something easily achievable without AI. Expanding or making those laws more universal is again totally justified.
Making any non-realistic, non-real person fictional image illegal just because it's gross and horrific is a really bad can of worms to open, whether its AI created or not. There's no limit to that other than what people find as gross and that's a wildly variable thing that will 100% be used to simply target people they don't like.
1
u/Low-Car-6331 1d ago
The problem is, prove that. Prove that xyz model was trained off of CSAM with the purpose of generating CSAM. Saying "all AI is trained off of ____ so it had to have CSAM as part of its creation" is not a legal argument as it makes a series of assumption from a single fact. Its like saying "the purpose of owning a gun is to kill things, so all of those people who own guns want to kill people". Likewise its criminally convicting a person because their car reported they went 130 mph, there are many places that is legal and many reasons for doing so, its on the state to build the case that they drove it 130mph in an illegal way.
1
u/PanchoPanoch 1d ago
I’m not even saying it should be illegal based on the legality of the material it was trained on. The output should be the determining factor. Since you used a gun argument I’ll use one too.
Having an unregistered short barrel rifle is illegal. Having a short rifle barrel on its own is not illegal and having an unfinished rifle body is not illegal. Putting the two pieces together is illegal. Even having the two pieces separate but on the shelf can be illegal due to constructive intent.
Another example, having a bunch of lawn fertilizer is totally legal. Making bombs using fertilizer is illegal.
By following that same train of thought, the prompt can also use perfectly legal inputs to create material that would otherwise be illegal.
0
13
u/SnooPredictions3028 2d ago
Feel bad for this dude for having to rule in this case. Yes you can't get in trouble when there is literally no victim, under our current laws. He recommended closing the loophole that allows this. Judges don't exist to create laws, they exist to determine whether or not they were broken.
If you want change don't harass this man, contact your lawmakers.
11
u/animorphsrewriter 2d ago
My understanding is that by the existing cases and law the judge was essentially forced to rule that way and in his statement asked for laws on AI to be updated so that his ruling won't stand in the future.
Which, the ruling is upsetting but I think we typically want judges who don't just rule outside of the law because of their morals, because if this judge can get away with doing it for good reasons then imagine a MAGA judge with precedent to do the same. They already push the limits of the law with questionable rulings to support their ideological attacks.
3
u/dannyheskett 2d ago
Correct- Congress can and should have already closed this, but they dont want to do anything that will upset the AI companies or big tech companies. The average age of a US Senator is 65. They can't handle basics let alone complicated cases anymore.
1
u/Wrong_Chicken_8497 1d ago
it’s not upsetting the ai companies, it’s that some of them are probably doing this exact thing
6
u/RequiemQuilty 1d ago
The judge is not happy woth this. This is probably the most honest judge anyone has ever seen. The judge spated specifically the law needs to change to adapt to the new tech. We should be praising this guy for doing his job and begging people to fix the issue
4
u/Valuchian 2d ago
If i remember right be also commented that the existing laws need to be updated because he acepted our current laws are what allowed this to be the case
10
5
u/Grouchy-Fisherman706 2d ago edited 1d ago
Some terribly immoral things are covered by the first amendment. That’s a small price to pay for free expression. Companies creating AI software can ban this and probably should. It’s not the goverment’s job to punish thought crimes or sick sexual propensities where no one is victimized.
7
3
u/RiskWorldly2916 2d ago
This is a topic that the law has been struggling with for some time now. There are actual arguments that make sense for both sides of it. I know it’s reprehensible behavior. But the overall integrity of rights are paramount.
The law will find a way to eliminate this scourge without impeding on rights eventually.
1
u/Repulsive_Rice4903 2d ago
This. I'm on the other side to you, I feel like the risks warrant a ban, but I understand the counter arguments such as 'children weren't harmed by it's production'. It certainly shouldn't carry the same punishments as actual CSAM but it should be enough for at least a warrant to search their devices for actual CSAM imo.
→ More replies (1)1
u/the_horny_alter 8h ago
Worrying about the integrity of rights in this topic while trans people, all femmes, people of color and immigrants are still being denied constitutional rights on a daily basis? Wild opinion
3
u/PaintedDesertSkies 1d ago
The people partaking of it do not know it is AI, so they are still.doing illegal things.
Not to mention, AI is trained on RL.
I have seen so many Reba and Dolly ads. Those kids faces come from somewhere.
3
2
u/LilJonny2cookies 1d ago
I ran cyber intelligence for a tech giant. We’ve put a lot of pedos away. I get the law and the decisions he references. That said, I’ve seen the harm and worked the cases.
In my lay opinion he should have been prosecuted. He was attempting to use those imagines to titillate and groom a teen.
F him
2
2
u/RipTheEcto 1d ago
What’s infuriating is this is another situation where an adult in the room could have told the people pushing AI that this is where it would lead and they and the politicians they own needed to do something about it proactively. Now I think we need to seek out some extreme measures to stop them if no one’s going to listen.
2
u/MichaelHammor 1d ago
Then posting the names of the people creating this material is also a form of protected speech. Wonder how their family's or bosses would perceive their hobby?
1
u/sithlord98 1d ago
Doxxing laws would have something to say about that. Also, how would you know? A big element of this ruling is that it only applies to private possession, not production or distribution.
6
u/MdTooDevilish Community Contributor 2d ago
Somebody check his harddrive
7
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DazB1ane 1d ago
But it’s based on real images
1
u/sithlord98 1d ago
Doesn't matter. The 2002 ruling he's basing this on is concerned with the content of the image, not the way it was produced or created. Since the image itself does not depict a real person, it can't be prohibited. That's part of the issue that the judge here is highlighting.
2
u/Telemere125 1d ago
Next level of idiot that this is the takeaway from the ruling. This is exactly why the untrained should not be giving legal advice or even voicing their opinion on legal matters. You’re just too dumb to understand what’s being said, so stay out of it. Keep silent when the adults are talking.
1
u/GoldBlueberryy 2d ago
Interesting. Is this state law or federal? I've seen ALOT of true crime body cams where these guys would get arrested for AI generated CSAM. Does that mean those convictions and cases get tossed? This is crazy.
1
u/King_Glorius_too 2d ago
Isn't drawn CP illegal in the US?
1
u/Right_Ear_2230 1d ago
no, unless it is of a real person iirc
1
u/Haifisch2112 1d ago
That means a perv could draw pictures of his underage neighbor doing things with older men and just add the disclaimer: The characters and events depicted in this picture are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.
1
u/Low-Car-6331 1d ago
This isn't the first time this has happened, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition overturned a similar ruling with the overturning of Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA). Congress turned around and passed another version effectively trying to do it again. This is the downside of the 1st amendment, thankfully there are ways around it (as many have been prosecuted for similar things up to this point), but its an ongoing battle. The only way to end it is to do a constitutional amendment specifically calling it out.
1
u/Hot_Mud_5708 1d ago
Judge has courage. No crime, no time. What next, outlaw movies that include fake murder? You can't be for the Constitution and against it at the same time. If you're against it, fine.
1
u/balirosa 1d ago
Seems like a violation of free speech. Movies that depict rape should be illegal in that case. Movies that show sex should be illegal. Didn’t Whoopie get child raped in The Color Purple?
1
u/Outrageous-Egg1760 Community Regular 1d ago
Free speech to do what
1
u/balirosa 1d ago
To create fake scenes whenever you want. Whoopi wouldn’t be on the view right now if that didn’t happen. So they can pretend to rape real people for million dollar box office but they can’t use fake people?
0
1
u/AmazingResponse338 1d ago edited 1d ago
The Supreme Court already ruled this way over 20 years ago.
"Virtual" child born is not illegal. Porn where the person is over 18, but looks like a child. If that is legal, then purely fictional actions are also legal.
FYI - I am not saying this is *right*, I am saying what the SC already said
1
u/Velsier33 1d ago
See if this was japan then it wouldn't even be news lol i swear thats like half of anime/Manga
1
1
1
u/OrganizationThick397 1d ago
Lolicon have better ability to distinguish fiction and reality than a lot of these people.
0
u/Hot_Mud_5708 1d ago
There is no sexual abuse with AI. That's like saying there are actual multiple murders is Scarface. Both are fake, no murder, no sexual abuse.
1
u/Pair_The_Board 1d ago
Check his hard drives mate
0
u/sithlord98 1d ago
It's insane how freely people are tossing around pedophilia accusations. He's a judge. His job is interpreting the law. In this case, a 2002 ruling makes this legal. He correctly interpreted it, and he said it was a problem and that the law should be changed.
1
u/Moral-Relativity 1d ago
The traditional definition of CSAM means it wouldn’t exist without criminal harm to the subject children. When AI generates such images, or even when someone is just very good at drawing, there’s an absence of a traditional victim, so you almost have to consider the impact from a “precrime” perspective à la Minority Report.
Bottom line is would society suffer more harm if certain images not depicting real life events were to exist, compared to the harm on freedom of expression of making such images illegal.
0
u/NormalNobody 2d ago
I'm sorry. So if I draw children in sexual acts, does that mean that's okay? Or is this only AI generated crap?
Is lolicon okay then? Like, I don't get it.
9
u/JediLincoln14 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's not real, so it's not harming anyone. So yes, it's legal. Outlawing it would violate the first amendment.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Timely-Helicopter244 2d ago
The whole point of CSAM being illegal is not because of the existence of the images themselves, but because there are children being abused in order to create it. Anything sexually explicit that portrays children is morally reprehensible and should be treated as such by society. But at least with illustrations, actual children are not harmed in the act of their creation if drawn through imagination without interaction with a child. The law protects children rathen than outright taking a moral stand.
2
u/LinkLast7065 2d ago
Yes to add to this, crimes usually have victims. If you draw a picture and store it on your computer, there is no victim in this scenario.
1
u/SexyMonad 2d ago
A side effect of making AI child porn legal is that it makes it harder to prove that actual child pornography is real. Drawings are obvious but AI isn’t.
And watermarking is insufficient because it’s fairly easy to add or remove the watermark, providing plausible deniability.
2
u/LinkLast7065 2d ago
Agreed. It is really hard to argue though. How do you prove a picture of a person that isn't real "looks underage"
"You say you prompted 19 but she looks 16. Welcome to being a felon."
My heart tells me that all AI generation like this should be illegal and protected against in general. But my head says wtf do we even do with ts.
1
u/Right_Ear_2230 1d ago
I think AI porn should be totally banned. Actually, scrap that, ALL AI image generation, ALL OF IT, it hasn’t done anything good
→ More replies (3)1
u/Timely-Helicopter244 1d ago
Oh definitely. That's why we need to figurw out how to regulate AI before it runs too far out of control.
3
u/No_Career369 2d ago
Legally speaking, lolicon and drawn images are "okay" because they're not real.
2
u/Right_Ear_2230 1d ago
and even from a moral standpoint, how can something be morally wrong without a victim somewhere?
→ More replies (6)1
2
u/intothewoods76 2d ago
Yes usually art is protected by the first amendment. A fictional drawing has no age. The artistic depiction of crimes are allowed. We see it all the time in movies.
-2
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/QueenInYellowLace 2d ago
He literally explained that this is exactly what the law allows currently and asked legislators to fix the law.
2
u/Right_Ear_2230 1d ago
seriously?
1
u/Leading-Fish6819 1d ago
Fire with fire.
1
u/Right_Ear_2230 1d ago
dude the saying is that fighting fire with fire doesn’t work
1
u/Leading-Fish6819 1d ago
Firefighters can and do fight fire with fire.
Such as ---
+Removing fuel: Wildland firefighters intentionally burn vegetation and brush ahead of an advancing wildfire.
+Creating a barrier: This controlled strip of burned land leaves nothing left for the main wildfire to consume, causing the flames to die out when they reach the cleared boundary.
The practice is known as backburning, or backfiring.
1
0
0
0
u/onwardsandupwards70 2d ago
So gross. Are his kids the ones being used as the AI generated images, does he like that?
2
u/sithlord98 1d ago
Why would you say something like that? He's a judge that has to interpret the law, he can't write it himself. He's right, a 2002 ruling makes it so that the government can't prohibit this. He's also right that we should change the laws around that.
0
0
0
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/sithlord98 1d ago
... You'd find evidence of a judge who correctly interpreted the law? Did you even read what he said?
2
u/kaadj 1d ago
God dammit you’re right I actually didn’t but I have now and he is technically right. It’s just like a weird and uncomfortable thing.
1
u/sithlord98 1d ago
I appreciate the fact that you went back and looked, a lot of people are just comfortable saying awful things about this guy with no clue about the actual situation.
You're right, it is weird and uncomfortable. And he's right that we need to revisit these laws.
0
0
u/Havency 1d ago
Hate me for this opinion, but I have a point. The csam laws and regulations are set in place to punish offenders and safeguard / prevent victims. In AI generated content, written content and animated content, there are no victims involved. It’s still obviously very wrong of course, but again, no victims involved and no crime committed despite how heinous it is.
You can say “that’s unfair, arrest them anyway since they’re deranged” and yeah, it makes sense. But, if we arrest on opinions or ‘well it looks bad’, then where’s the line drawn? At what point do we say ‘wait, that’s too much’.
What if we arrest based on cartoons that shame the president or make jokes of assassinations? What if we arrest people who buy a lot of rope and lube? It looks bad but there’s no crime committed technically, but arrest anyway?
My point is, there’s a line. We cannot EVER cross that line because when it’s blurred, there’s no longer standards of procedure. There’s no longer a reference. And it’s all then subjective and everything is up for grabs. Arrest him and her just because. No need to explain because anymore there’s no line, right?
Anyways, long story short, don’t be a bad person and make content about kids. But if you do, you’re sick but shouldn’t be arrested since you did nothing illegal.
0
0
u/foxfirek 1d ago
I don’t mind this in theory. Ok- obviously controversial opinion but think of it objectively.
No child was hurt. Which is what matters. Just like with novels or drawings. No real person is involved. Thats the most important thing with fictional work. Just like how an action movie people are shot and die, it’s not even close to similar to an actual person being shot and dying.
The problem as far as I see it is we have no way of accurately telling if something is real or AI. We don’t have a law requiring watermarks or some sort of digital signature.
So then what happens when someone has real CP and claims it’s AI? That’s horrifying.
On the other hand, if we did had a good way of tracking if something was truly AI- wouldn’t this lead to better outcomes for real children? If the people who consume this content move to consuming AI content instead then that would reduce the value of real CP, which would then hopefully reduce victims used to make such content.
Anyway that’s how i see it.
As I’m sure this will be downvoted to oblivion by people who probably won’t read it all the way through or even think of it I am running off notifications.
0
u/StorageExciting8567 1d ago
I wrote my law school note about this. The fact that CSAM is illegal is a carve out to the First Amendment because, among a couple other reasons, it inherently harms the child. This ruling happened in the 80s, when AI wasn’t a thing. A photo or a video of a child was of an actual child. In 2002 or 2003, the case for AI generated CSAM was brought to the Supreme Court. That court ruled that it was not illegal because its creation didn’t harm an identifiable child. I believe Clarence Thomas, however, said this could be re-raised in the future as technology develops because it’s going to be difficult for law enforcement to distinguish between identifiable and AI-generated children. The argument that the training data sets are based on real children doesn’t seem to hold up well because you can’t reasonably scour data an LLM is trained on, and point to a specific child being abused.
This is not my opinion, it’s just the state of the law.
0
0
u/Fugitivelnk 1d ago
Jesus I just have to keep reposting the same fucking thing today, don't I?
Let me break it down for you:
- AI-generated sexual images that are based on real children ("deepfakes") are treated entirely the same as CSAM. They have incredibly strict rules about them that even outlaw things like clothed individuals sexually posing, if the focus is on the genital region. By the way, that same rule applies to any images that are edited to look like a sexual depiction of a real child, including photoshop or literally even cutting out a photo of a child's face and pasting it to an adult porn star's body. The Supreme Court repeatedly has explained that these stricter rules are allowed because the government has an interest in protecting real children from direct harm. This is a pretty good rule, in my opinion.
- But AI-generated sexual images that depict FICTIONAL children, no matter how realistic they may look - those are only governed by obscenity law. No actual, specific child is being harmed, so the only thing they have available is the very vague, frustrating, outdated, very stupid, and I would argue actually unconstitutional (but that's an argument for another day) obscenity law. I'm not going to bother getting into all the details right now, partially because literally no legal expert on earth can look at a pornographic image and tell you if it is obscene or not - it's literally impossible. But I will say that there are some hard rules, including the fact that it pretty much can't just depict nudity - it pretty much has to depict sexual activity to be considered legally obscene.
- Now, obscenity cases were extremely rare for a long time because they were kind of fucking stupid. I mean the idea that the actual letter-of-the-law says that a whole bunch of normal porn is illegal in the US seems ridiculous. But with the recent explosion in AI, prosecutors have realized that the only tool they have to charge some of these people making realistic AI images of kids is obscenity law, so that's what they're using.
- Everyone with me so far? Okay, so going all the way back to the Supreme Court case Stanley v. Georgia in 1969, it's been well established that you can NOT charge someone with private possession of ANY obscene material. The argument goes something like this: "making obscene material, selling it, distributing it, or buying it are more public and are harmful to society somehow, I guess. But someone privately owning it isn't actually involving anyone else, so you can't make it illegal."
- Before everyone freaks out over this, there's one important detail you need to know: in United States v. Reidel (1971), it was clarified that the government could criminalize "receiving" obscene material. In other words, you might not be able to charge someone with possessing obscene material, but you can charge them with creating obscene material, buying obscene material, or even just receiving it from anywhere (for instance, downloading it). When you look at it that way, there's really not any other way for someone to get possession of this material, so it's still pretty damn illegal.
-4
u/Economy-electrician 2d ago
What a disgusting human being. Absolute trash
6
2
u/JuiceM00se 2d ago
The short version is he said under the current laws in place banning it has no grounds, but he also said he think laws should be developed to be more effective in our modern era.
-3
u/Impressive-Mud5074 2d ago
Victimless crime, of course it should be legal.
3
u/voxjammer 2d ago
ai doesn't generate things from thin air. for a learning model to generate something, it had to have something to train off of. not a victimless crime whatsoever.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (8)2
u/Lopsided-Cycle-4798 Community Regular 2d ago
Sir this is encouraging abuse, it should not be legal 💀
→ More replies (8)2
u/intothewoods76 2d ago
Make that argument for anything else. Would you argue the depiction of robbery in movies should be outlawed because it encourages robbery?
Do you argue that violence depicted in video games encourages violence?
Do you argue that rap songs depicting gang behavior encourages gang behavior?
Do you recognize even if you do clearly society as a whole does not because they allow all of these other depictions to occur under first amendment protection.
→ More replies (3)
42
u/DeliciousAct5748 2d ago
Iirc the ruling was that (paraphrasing) "we can't arrest you for having fake videos of something that didn't happen".
But they did say that generating AI videos using real data (pictures, videos of children) is an offense.