8 ms·

>doesn't hurt anybody You're looking at it too narrowly. AI-generated CSAM may facilitate a sexual interest in children among certain individuals. Development

>doesn't hurt anybody You're looking at it too narrowly. AI-generated CSAM may facilitate a sexual interest in children among certain individuals. Development of such an interest makes it significantly more likely they will abuse children. So it ought be illegal.

gruez 4y ago
Is this backed empirically? The argument you made is almost identical to the ones used for "grand theft auto is making kids violent!".
- hn_throwaway_69 4y ago
  There's no reason to make such material lawful unless the converse is proved by empirical evidence. That is, can it be proved that people who view AI-based material are less likely to act on a sexual interest in real children? Unless that's proven, there's no other reason to make such material lawful. You're welcome to provide one. The analogy is not apt. You cannot compare image-based abuse of children with a video game. GTA is a legitimate form of entertainment, child abuse material is not. They are not remotely similar. This shows why analogies are almost never helpful and it's best just to focus on the topic under discussion.
  - dannyw 4y ago
    We live in a society where things are allowed by default and banned if they cause harm, not a society where things are banned by default and allowed if they are proven to not cause harm.
    - userbinator 4y ago
      Sadly, these days one can only hope that we do.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - SXX 4y ago
    I doubt anyone on HN would argue for making AI generated CSAM lawful. At the same time attempts to add unenforceable limitations into ML technology like ClosedAI trying to do is worse than useless. You can generate whatever you want on your own PC, but if you try to use it for fraud or to share illegal material then you are a criminal.
    - naniwaduni 4y ago
      Legality of fictional child pornography is surprisingly contentious, with positions ranging from "protected as artwork under freedom expression", "illegal if provenance involves child abuse within jurisdiction", to "illegal but non-realistic depictions don't count", to "depiction of children are illegal, regardless of provenance", to "depictions of adults who could be mistaken for children is also illegal"—just among first-world countries. "AI-generated CSAM" ranges from obviously unlawful to an oxymoron depending on the standard applied!
- guilhas 4y ago
  I think that does not apply. That would be if criminals in prison were given GTA would they have better or worse chance of rehabilitation?
SXX 4y ago
Does watching gay porn make you gay too? Why on Earth any normal person would specifically look for CSAM material be it AI generated or not? I doubt that many people who seen something sickening on internet immediately became attracted to it and huge percent of people who use internet for 10+ years seen all kind of terrible things. Unfortunately anyone who hosted or moderated online communities had to deal with a lot of terrible things. Also we have whole army of youtube / facebook / twitter moderators who actually see CSAM daily and we dont have stories about everyone of them turning into child-abusers. Though it's proven that this kind of job can make person mentally ill, but for completely different reasons. PS: Again be it AI generated or not I totally sure that CSAM should stay banned from sharing. But I dont give a damn about what you paint, generate and watch on your own PC.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  The idea is that viewing AI-generated CSAM by someone who is already a pedophile will increase the probability that they'll decide to go out and abuse a child. Or, it'll foster a cultural acceptance of child abuse, leading people to be more confident to go out and do it. There's no actual data that demonstrates this, given it's hard to study, but it's not implausible. One could make the opposite argument, too. If you give pedophiles AI-generated CSAM, it reduces the demand for real CSAM, thereby reducing production of real-world CSAM, thereby reducing child abuse. Moreover it provides pedophiles their fix without them having to actually abuse a child. In the end these are all armchair speculations made from our intuitions about individual psychology and group psychology.
  - SXX 4y ago
    We can speculate all we want. The fact is: its impossible to apply any real restrictionsn ML model. Just like any DRM this one gonna be easy to bypass and will only degrade experience of legit users and gonna slow down technology advancement. We dont require image editors to have CSAM filters and requiring filter for ML model is madness.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
yellowapple 4y ago
This sounds a lot like the rather-thoroughly-debunked "violent video games make people violent" argument.
tomjen3 4y ago
You are making a bunch of assumptions, that, if true, are a strong argument for banning it. In reality, if it is the case that this will satisfy some people desires, then it may be the case that fewer children are abused this way, in which case it would be a bad idea to ban it.

gruez 4y ago

Is this backed empirically? The argument you made is almost identical to the ones used for "grand theft auto is making kids violent!".

hn_throwaway_69 4y ago
There's no reason to make such material lawful unless the converse is proved by empirical evidence. That is, can it be proved that people who view AI-based material are less likely to act on a sexual interest in real children? Unless that's proven, there's no other reason to make such material lawful. You're welcome to provide one. The analogy is not apt. You cannot compare image-based abuse of children with a video game. GTA is a legitimate form of entertainment, child abuse material is not. They are not remotely similar. This shows why analogies are almost never helpful and it's best just to focus on the topic under discussion.
- dannyw 4y ago
  We live in a society where things are allowed by default and banned if they cause harm, not a society where things are banned by default and allowed if they are proven to not cause harm.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    Sadly, these days one can only hope that we do.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- SXX 4y ago
  I doubt anyone on HN would argue for making AI generated CSAM lawful. At the same time attempts to add unenforceable limitations into ML technology like ClosedAI trying to do is worse than useless. You can generate whatever you want on your own PC, but if you try to use it for fraud or to share illegal material then you are a criminal.
  - naniwaduni 4y ago
    Legality of fictional child pornography is surprisingly contentious, with positions ranging from "protected as artwork under freedom expression", "illegal if provenance involves child abuse within jurisdiction", to "illegal but non-realistic depictions don't count", to "depiction of children are illegal, regardless of provenance", to "depictions of adults who could be mistaken for children is also illegal"—just among first-world countries. "AI-generated CSAM" ranges from obviously unlawful to an oxymoron depending on the standard applied!
guilhas 4y ago
I think that does not apply. That would be if criminals in prison were given GTA would they have better or worse chance of rehabilitation?

SXX 4y ago

Does watching gay porn make you gay too? Why on Earth any normal person would specifically look for CSAM material be it AI generated or not? I doubt that many people who seen something sickening on internet immediately became attracted to it and huge percent of people who use internet for 10+ years seen all kind of terrible things. Unfortunately anyone who hosted or moderated online communities had to deal with a lot of terrible things. Also we have whole army of youtube / facebook / twitter moderators who actually see CSAM daily and we dont have stories about everyone of them turning into child-abusers. Though it's proven that this kind of job can make person mentally ill, but for completely different reasons. PS: Again be it AI generated or not I totally sure that CSAM should stay banned from sharing. But I dont give a damn about what you paint, generate and watch on your own PC.

hackerlight 4y ago
The idea is that viewing AI-generated CSAM by someone who is already a pedophile will increase the probability that they'll decide to go out and abuse a child. Or, it'll foster a cultural acceptance of child abuse, leading people to be more confident to go out and do it. There's no actual data that demonstrates this, given it's hard to study, but it's not implausible. One could make the opposite argument, too. If you give pedophiles AI-generated CSAM, it reduces the demand for real CSAM, thereby reducing production of real-world CSAM, thereby reducing child abuse. Moreover it provides pedophiles their fix without them having to actually abuse a child. In the end these are all armchair speculations made from our intuitions about individual psychology and group psychology.
- SXX 4y ago
  We can speculate all we want. The fact is: its impossible to apply any real restrictionsn ML model. Just like any DRM this one gonna be easy to bypass and will only degrade experience of legit users and gonna slow down technology advancement. We dont require image editors to have CSAM filters and requiring filter for ML model is madness.
  - hackerlight 4y ago

yellowapple 4y ago

This sounds a lot like the rather-thoroughly-debunked "violent video games make people violent" argument.

tomjen3 4y ago

You are making a bunch of assumptions, that, if true, are a strong argument for banning it. In reality, if it is the case that this will satisfy some people desires, then it may be the case that fewer children are abused this way, in which case it would be a bad idea to ban it.