While lolicon is absolutely disgusting, its not actually csam. Legislation won't work either and is honestly a waste of time. Any effort spent protecting digital children should instead be spent protecting real ones.
The problem is that it's not just cartoon characters, but also realistic looking people. That makes it, especially in the next years when the techniques improve, impossible to know what is fake and what is not and thus the fake ones should also be banned. And these models are trained on images of actual abused children, which of course is the main problem with this.
This is the first I'm hearing about models trained on real CSAM.
It wouldnt surprise me tbh. From my superficial visit to the darknet years ago, it seemed like these csam consumers have specific "favourites" among the victims whom they want to see more of. At least that's what I remember from clicking a link to such a chan and noping out of it.
It is the first you are heading about this because it is bs.
Didn't watch the video, but I don't care about AI CSAM. Even if it looks completely lifelike, it's not real.
Prove it's fake when some of it of your daughter is making it's way around school.
You've missed the point. Fake or not it does damage to people. And eventually it won't be possible to determine if it's real or not.
When that becomes widespread, photos will be generateable for literally everyone, not just minors but every person with photos online. It will be a societal shift; images will be assumed to be AI generated, making any guilt or shame about a nude photo existing obselete.
What a disguising assumption. And the best argument against AI I've ever heard.
I mean, anyone with enough artistic talent can draw whatever they would like right now. With AI image generation, it essentially just gives everyone the ability to draw whatever they want. You can try to fight the tech all you want, but it's a losing battle.
You may not like it, but do you really see another likely scenario?
Disguising or disgusting?
AI generated porn depicting real people seems like a different and much bigger issue
AI generated CSAM in general, while disgusting, at least doesn't directly harm people, fabricated nudes most definitely does, regardless of the age of the victim
You just implied children aren't real people.
AI generated nudes of noone in particular isn't hurting anyone, not directly at least, but AI generated nudes of a specific person, using that persons likeness and everything, that's much worse
AI can generate faces of people that don't actually exist, that's what i mean
The post made it seem like it was about AI generated CSAM in general, which while disgusting, doesn't directly harm anyone, but then the comments spoke about AI generated CSAM depicting a real individual, and that's much worse, but also not a problem that's specific to children
AI CSAM is incredibly harmful. All CSAM is harmful. It's been shown to increase chance of pedophilic abuse.
Stop defending CSAM, HOLY SHIT.
It’s been shown to increase chance of pedophilic abuse.
Can you link me a source for that, please?
Jeez, calm down
I am not defending CSAM, just saying that CSAM depicting an actual existing child is magnitudes worse, as is any other kind of fabricated sexual content of real people.
Take loli porn for example, it's probably bad for society, but if someone makes loli porn based on the appearance of an actual individual, that's much more fucked up, and in addition to the "normal" detrimental effects, that would also harm that victim in a much more direct way.
Eh, if you train a ai with CSAM to make more CSAM that a different story. But in general yes.
What data is it trained on? This isn't meant to be a "gotcha" question, I'm wondering about it.
An image of an "avocado chair" is built on images of avocados, and images of chairs.
There is no such thing.
God dammit, the entire point of calling it CSAM is to distinguish photographic evidence of child rape from made-up images that make people feel icky.
If you want them treated the same, legally - go nuts. Have that argument. But stop treating the two as the same thing, and fucking up clear discussion of the worst thing on the internet.
You can't generate assault. It is impossible to abuse children who do not exist.
Did nobody in this comment section read the video at all?
The only case mentioned by this video is a case where highschool students distributed (counterfeit) sexually explicit images of their classmates which had been generated by an AI model.
I don't know if it meets the definition of CSAM because the events depicted in the images are fictional, but the subjects are real.
These children do exist, some have doubtlessly been traumatized by this. This crime has victims.
I think a lot of people are arguing that the models which are used to generate these types of content are trained on literal CSAM. So it's like CSAM with extra steps.
Those people are morons.
In most (all?) countries no such distinction is made, the material is illegal all the same.
Creating, collecting and sharing CSAM is in the law already. There are orgs and agencies for tracking and prosecuting these violations.
It's like fighting against 3d printers because you can make yourself a diy gun, a thing that have never being possible before because we got all pipes banned from hardware stores. The means to produce fictional CSAM always existed and would exist, the problem is with people who use a LMM, a camera, a fanfic to create and share that content. Or a Lemmy community that was a problem in recent months.
It's better to ensure the existing means of fighting such content are effective and society is educated about this danger, know how to avoid and report it.
Loli stuff isn't CSAM. You can find it bad, but its still just a drawing/generative image. No real person was harmed in general.
Me: I just want real looking dinosaurs with cool, long flowing hair.
Most of this thread is defending csam, which loli definitely is. WTF. Disgusting community.
I think you're confused. No one is defending CSAM. Lolicon isn't CSAM. Also I don't understand why we would spend effort protecting digital children instead of protecting real ones.
Nobody is protecting digital children and it's almost always disingenuous when this argument is claimed to be made. The effort is to stop the normalization of the sexualization children. Lolicon is exclusively about romancing or sexualizing children. Deluded adults who think what happens in lolicon material is ok are potential risks to real children. Allowing such a risk to children for the pleasure of these adult is absurd.
Fair enough. Imo lolicon is disgusting. And Im not making an argument in bad faith, I just see how much general society fails at protecting children and would rather see any effort spent towards cracking down on lolicon to be used to help real children.
I understand what you're saying, but the fighting against Lolicon doesn't necessarily take away from the fight against real CSAM. The reality is serious, far-reaching, and, ultimately, human issues like the exploitation of children are complex and require effort on multiple fronts to be effective.
The edp picture is very funny
Couldn't the fact that AI generated content be reproduceable if give the exact parameters(or coordinates in latent space) and model help remove the confusion? Include those as meta data and train investigators on how to use to distinguish generated content from actual evidence.
There's an option to speed up generation but it will make it less deterministic, like in it's 98% the same image but a little different. Also it's very hard to reproduce the same hard and software generation. That's the first issue.
The second is: I had examples of images with generation data, that I could reproduce to look 99% like the original and then just updating a single word or part of the training data (different Lora version for example) , switched the person away or their appearance changed a completely. (Imagine a picture of a street and a car is suddenly not there, or it's blue instead of red). It will make reproducibility not a reliable option. Backgrounds of images are even less reliable than the focus object.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=yMHK4-J5Sz4&t=533
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What do you people think this will lead to? Is it solvable or not? and if yes then how?
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
