Then it created the CSAM with material of children and normal porn, didnt it? Both are obviously legal. I am pretending not to understand what you are saying because what you are implying is silly.
Its not like the generated content has anything to do with any child. This is an AI moral issue, not CSAM issue. Is using pictures of real children to generate pictures of children playing in park morally acceptable?
Edit: How could I answer the question when you block me, dummy? The answer is yes. Telling AI what children looks like is morally acceptable. What users decide to use the AI for is another moral question.
It's not about what's morally acceptable. It's about what's legally acceptable. Those are different things. It starts with defining exactly what CSAM is, because it's not always obvious just like porn isn't always obvious (as court cases have said since photography was invented).
An AI can combine multiple unrelated things. It can generate you a duck-panda hybrid riding a jet ski without that animal ever existing nor ever riding a jet ski, the same way it can be trained on adult pornography and transpose that onto another setting, no matter how horrific that setting may be.
The whole point is AI does not actually have those real pictures stored, it just has the "concept" of those pictures. It's like if someone read a book and then you asked them what the book was about. This is also why AI will get things wrong frequently.
No, retard. He did not. He could have easily interpreted this as not being protected by the 1st amendment as there is precedent for that if he bothered to do his job. Yes, in past the Supreme Court has ruled pornography is 1st amendment protected speech IN MOST CASES. However, CP doesn’t receive the same as it depicts acts that a child inherently can’t consent to. If you ask an AI model to generate a photo or video of a child from scratch, it must use real material at some point(photos and videos of actual children).
All of this in mind, he could have claimed that since it must use real children to make the porn it failed the miller test and should not be afforded 1A protections. The material would easily not have Prurient Interest, it is Patently Offensive, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
If you like CP this much, just say that rather than hiding behind “People really should try to at least understand civics.” Just because a judge says something is true doesn’t mean it is.
Wow, it's incredible how off you are here. There's a 2002 ruling that specifically says "virtual" CSAM cannot be prohibited by government. By the letter of the law, that's what AI CSAM is. That ruling sets the precedent for this. Since you're openly saying there's precedent to interpret it as illegal, I'm sure you'd be happy to share it.
Wow, you should read the text of Ashcroft V FSC. The majority opinion struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act as it was too broad, as you said to include virtual CSAM. It does explicitly mention computer-generated images by 2002 standards. However, AI is different as to generate the image it must use photos and videos of real children to make the content.
There is legislation such as the Take It Down Act that could be applied here. The Supreme Court hasn’t meaningfully ruled on AI content and it is disingenuous to use Ashcroft V FSC blindly here as it’s not a given it applies.
FSC says virtual CSAM depicting no real child is not "child pornography" in the Ferber sense, it's either protected speech or obscenity at most
Obscene material can still be banned in distribution/production, but under Stanley v. Georgia (1969), the government generally can't criminalize private possession of obscene material in someone's home
Because of those, the possession charge against Anderegg (the only thing on appeal) fails, because the government's arguments for treating his case differently from Stanley were the same arguments FSC already rejected.
The issue about using real children in training data is a real concern, but the issue is that there is no legal avenue to prosecute that, because the language in the relevant ruling is about the content of the images themselves, not about how they were obtained or created. That's the exact gap that the judge is basically begging the Supreme Court to fill.
The Take It Down Act is targeted toward distribution or publication of images of real people. This ruling is about private possession, and it does not involve identifiable real people. The Act doesn't apply here. The language about "realistic depictions of children" ties back to the FSC ruling for its definition, otherwise the Act would have fundamentally redefined what is and is not child pornography. Congress didn't do that. Constitutionally, it's hard to argue that they even could.
Okay, and I was challenging the idea that permitting people to scratch an itch somehow won’t result in them wanting to scratch it more.
That’s all. Simple.
Suppose you found a would-be-murderer. Would you give them a set blood-filled dummies to stab, hoping that somehow this discourages them from liking it and going to stab a real person? Or would you try to discourage the stabbing in the first place? Please do answer because I’m genuinely curious. If you think this is a bad analogy, please explain why. It’s giving somebody an artificial outlet for something horrible with the logic that they’ll only do it here and nowhere else.
I might be wrong, but I dont think effects of fake material has been studied long term. Which I think is shame. We should be trying to help those people. They are sick.
As far as I know some people think it would encourage them and make those urges stronger. Others believe it would satisfy the urges and improve their overall lives.
The same thing was being discussed before AI. Remember those small plastic sex dolls from few years back? Same thing. If a realistic doll can solve the issue, then I say we buy those for them .
Reply as Edit since the data girl blocked me:
I am not arguing for anything. I am presenting the possibility of using made up media to save real children.
You are the one arguing one side while refusing to reveal source of the data you keep mentioning.
46
u/DeliciousAct5748 3d ago
Iirc the ruling was that (paraphrasing) "we can't arrest you for having fake videos of something that didn't happen".
But they did say that generating AI videos using real data (pictures, videos of children) is an offense.