363
submitted 1 year ago by db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/news@lemmy.world

A Florida man is facing 20 counts of obscenity for allegedly creating and distributing AI-generated child pornography, highlighting the danger and ubiquity of generative AI being used for nefarious reasons.

Phillip Michael McCorkle was arrested last week while he was working at a movie theater in Vero Beach, Florida, according to TV station CBS 12 News. A crew from the TV station captured the arrest, which made for dramatic video footage due to law enforcement leading away the uniform-wearing McCorkle from the theater in handcuffs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 93 points 1 year ago

I don't see how children were abused in this case? It's just AI imagery.

It's the same as saying that people get killed when you play first person shooter games.

Or that you commit crimes when you play GTA.

[-] timestatic@feddit.org 31 points 1 year ago

Then also every artist creating loli porn would have to be jailed for child pornography.

[-] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

How was the model trained? Probably using existing CSAM images. Those children are victims. Making derivative images of “imaginary” children doesn’t negate its exploitation of children all the way down.

So no, you are making false equivalence with your video game metaphors.

[-] fernlike3923@sh.itjust.works 55 points 1 year ago

A generative AI model doesn't require the exact thing it creates in its datasets. It most likely just combined regular nudity with a picture of a child.

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 28 points 1 year ago

Can you or anyone verify that the model was trained on CSAM?

Besides a LLM doesn't need to have explicit content to derive from to create a naked child.

[-] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

You’re defending the generation of CSAM pretty hard here in some vaguely “but no child we know of” being involved as a defense.

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 14 points 1 year ago

I just hope that the Models aren't trained on CSAM. Making generating stuff they can fap on ""ethical reasonable"" as no children would be involved. And I hope that those who have those tendancies can be helped one way or another that doesn't involve chemical castration or incarceration.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

While i wouldn't put it past Meta&Co. to explicitly seek out CSAM to train their models on, I don't think that is how this stuff works.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

But the AI companies insist the outputs of these models aren't derivative works in any other circumstances!

[-] Samvega 15 points 1 year ago

It's just AI imagery.

Fantasising about sexual contact with children indicates that this person might groom children for real, because they have a sexual interest in doing so. As someone who was sexually assaulted as a child, it's really not something that needs to happen.

[-] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Well, the image generator had to be trained on something first in order to spit out child porn. While it may be that the training set was solely drawn/rendered images, we don't know that, and even if the output were in that style, it might very well be photorealistic images generated from real child porn and run through a filter.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 48 points 1 year ago

An AI that is trained on children and nude adults can infer what a nude child looks like without ever being trained specifically with those images.

[-] yesman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes exactly. That people are then excusing this with "well it was trained on all.public images," are just admitting you're right and that there is a level of harm here since real materials are used. Even if they weren't being used or if it was just a cartoon, the morality is still shaky because of the role porn plays in advertising. We already have laws about advertising because it's so effective, including around cigarettes and prescriptions. Most porn, ESPECIALLY FREE PORN, is an ad to get you to buy other services. CP is not excluded from this rule - no one gets free lunch, so to speak. These materials are made and hosted for a reason.

The role that CP plays in most countries is difficult. It is used for blackmail. It is also used to generate money for countries (intelligence groups around the world host illegal porn ostensibly "to catch a predator," but then why is it morally okay for them to distribute these images but no one else?). And it's used as advertising for actual human trafficking organizations. And similar organizations exist for snuff and gore btw. And ofc animals. And any combination of those 3. Or did you all forget about those monkey torture videos, or the orangutan who was being sex trafficked? Or Daisy's Destruction and Peter Scully?

So it's important to not allow these advertisers to combine their most famous monkey torture video with enough AI that they can say it's AI generated, but it's really just an ad for their monkey torture productions. And even if NONE of the footage was from illegal or similar events and was 100% thought of by AI - it can still be used as an ad for these groups if they host it. Cartoons can be ads ofc.

[-] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How many corn dogs do you think were in the training data?

[-] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Wild corn dogs are an outright plague where I live. When I was younger, me and my buddies would lay snares to catch to corn dogs. When we caught one, we'd roast it over a fire to make popcorn. Corn dog cutlets served with popcorn from the same corn dog is popular meal, especially among the less fortunate. Even though some of the affluent consider it the equivalent to eating rat meat. When me pa got me first rifle when I turned 14, I spent a few days just shooting corn dogs.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] lunarul@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

we don't know that

might

Unless you're operating under "guilty until proven innocent", those are not reasons to accuse someone.

[-] leraje 5 points 1 year ago

The difference is intent. When you're playing a FPS, the intent is to play a game. When you play GTA the intent is to play a game.

The intent with AI generated CSAM is to watch kids being abused.

[-] datavoid@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago

Whose to say there aren't people playing games to watch people die?

[-] leraje 4 points 1 year ago

There may well be the odd weirdo playing Call of Duty to watch people die.

But everyone who watches CSAM is watching it to watch kids being abused.

[-] ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Punishing people for intending to do something is punishing them for thought crimes. That is not the world I want to live in.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not a great comparison, because unlike withh violent games or movies, you can't say that there is no danger to anyone in allowing these images to be created or distributed. If they are indistinguishable from the real thing, it then becomes impossible to identify actual human victims.

There's also a strong argument that the availability of imagery like this only encourages behavioral escalation in people who suffer from the affliction of being a sick fucking pervert pedophile. It's not methadone for them, as some would argue. It's just fueling their addiction, not replacing it.

this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
363 points (100.0% liked)

News

33670 readers
2775 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS