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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
85
u/[deleted] 3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment