In order for generative AI to produce a realistic image of a naked child it has to be taught what naked children look like. Real children were abused to train the AI.
We already have humans who can draw CSAM without any actual victims, and the reason for banning such material is that it may encourage future child abuse, which is a very realistic and reasonable concern in my opinion. It’s possible that fictitious child abuse may have value in providing an outlet for those suffering from pedophilia, but I personally think that it should be regulated in accordance with the opinions mental health professionals and not left up to the concept of free speech.
Regarding the comparison to objections made against homosexuality, we have to look at what is meant by harm to society. In the case of CSAM it’s that real children may be harmed. In the case of gay media it’s that more people might be openly gay. These are both plausible outcomes, but the levels of harm are very different. It’s fine to risk more people being gay because it doesn’t hurt anything; it’s not fine to risk children being harmed.
That’s not how generative AI works. It doesn’t need to be trained on CSAM. If you created a fictional futuristic sport where people flew around in cubes and shot geese at each other in a stadium made entirely of living flesh, an AI model will be able to produce images of that. It was never trained for those images, but it will be able to produce them.
Oof coming off as a CSAM apologist here not a good look.
The AI model knows what a cube, flesh, and geese look like from training. Hence identifying objects in CAPTCHA prompts for the last decade. All you’re asking it to do is hallucinate things together that it has context for.
If you ask it to generate an image of a wanjambo flippidy flop with the scrilla dilla it’s not going to have any context of what that looks like.
In order for AI to know what a naked child’s body looks like it has to have injested some context or it would just use adult body parts and shapes with a child’s face.
Clearly based on Elon’s CSAM machine output, it has injested naked pictures of children. Think about who you’re simping for with your comment it’s fucking disgusting
I’m not a CSAM apologist, nor am I simping for any AI model. I’m just explaining how generative AI works and how it can generate images of things it isn’t trained on. It’s disturbing that you would jump to those conclusions.
I also want to point out, similar to the weird zoophelia ask Lemmy question a few days ago; this is weird because wanting this material is so far outside the bounds of the social contract it not only breaches it, but also makes you ask, “This guy is generating child pornagraphy! What the fuck else is he doing?” Even if no children were harmed (which obviously not the case) the fact that you even made that an option, and then they took it tells you enough
In order for generative AI to produce a realistic image of a naked child it has to be taught what naked children look like. Real children were abused to train the AI.
We already have humans who can draw CSAM without any actual victims, and the reason for banning such material is that it may encourage future child abuse, which is a very realistic and reasonable concern in my opinion. It’s possible that fictitious child abuse may have value in providing an outlet for those suffering from pedophilia, but I personally think that it should be regulated in accordance with the opinions mental health professionals and not left up to the concept of free speech.
Regarding the comparison to objections made against homosexuality, we have to look at what is meant by harm to society. In the case of CSAM it’s that real children may be harmed. In the case of gay media it’s that more people might be openly gay. These are both plausible outcomes, but the levels of harm are very different. It’s fine to risk more people being gay because it doesn’t hurt anything; it’s not fine to risk children being harmed.
That’s not how generative AI works. It doesn’t need to be trained on CSAM. If you created a fictional futuristic sport where people flew around in cubes and shot geese at each other in a stadium made entirely of living flesh, an AI model will be able to produce images of that. It was never trained for those images, but it will be able to produce them.
Oof coming off as a CSAM apologist here not a good look.
The AI model knows what a cube, flesh, and geese look like from training. Hence identifying objects in CAPTCHA prompts for the last decade. All you’re asking it to do is hallucinate things together that it has context for.
If you ask it to generate an image of a wanjambo flippidy flop with the scrilla dilla it’s not going to have any context of what that looks like.
In order for AI to know what a naked child’s body looks like it has to have injested some context or it would just use adult body parts and shapes with a child’s face.
Clearly based on Elon’s CSAM machine output, it has injested naked pictures of children. Think about who you’re simping for with your comment it’s fucking disgusting
I’m not a CSAM apologist, nor am I simping for any AI model. I’m just explaining how generative AI works and how it can generate images of things it isn’t trained on. It’s disturbing that you would jump to those conclusions.
I also want to point out, similar to the weird zoophelia ask Lemmy question a few days ago; this is weird because wanting this material is so far outside the bounds of the social contract it not only breaches it, but also makes you ask, “This guy is generating child pornagraphy! What the fuck else is he doing?” Even if no children were harmed (which obviously not the case) the fact that you even made that an option, and then they took it tells you enough