452
Child psychiatrist jailed after using AI to make pornographic deep-fakes of kids
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
452 points (92.3% liked)
Technology
59381 readers
1083 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No it isn't.
No, it's child porn.
Can't imagine why.
You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?
So it's wrong for it to be based on one child, but according to you the AI "art" (as you keep calling it) is okay as long as there are thousands of victims instead?
So you're cool with images of 6 year olds being penetrated by a 40 year old as long as "tHe Ai DrEw iT sO nObOdY gOt HuRt"? I guess you could just set it as your desktop and phone wallpaper and everything would be fine. Let me know how that works out for you.
That's some stunning mental gymnastics right there.
It does matter how myself and wider society view disgusting content. It matters a lot. And society absolutely has a say of it's acceptance or otherwise to such content. You saying otherwise is absurd.
In the same way that I can't and shouldn't write something incrediblely racist and pretend it's 'art'. Even if AI made it.
Attempting to give AI child porn a pass, as you are doing for some baffling reason, absolutely will create further harm further down the line.
I’d say it’s because the person you’re replying to rightfully sees it as a slippery slope. If you say this fake image that didn’t directly harm anyone is illegal, what’s to stop you from saying some other fake image that’s much more in line with social tastes is also illegal? Ie an artwork made of human shit, for example. Most people would be repulsed by that. But it doesn’t change the fact that it could be art. As long as it doesn’t concretely harm someone, it’s hard to equate it to said harm.
It's child porn.
Child. Pornography.
It is not "Art".
The slippery slope is people like you confusing the two and trying to somehow justify CP as free speech/art.
I don't care how it is made. There is a line. This crosses it. Simple as that.
You don't need CP to get ai to make CP. Please educate yourself on ai technology.
I am a software engineer and you are misrepresenting the technology. All the articles I can find state it was a web based ai generator but not which one. Please find me a company that makes this tech public and is somehow not in trouble but should be or is in trouble.
"That same year, Tatum surreptitiously recorded one of his New York patients during an outpatient visit, five days after the youth turned 18."
"Two of the images Tatum used AI to modify were from a school dance"
https://news.yahoo.com/charlotte-child-psychiatrist-used-ai-232015715.html
The above quotes indicate it may have been used on an older child which could easily be done with legal training data. Please find any evidence that any public ai image generator is stupid enough to use CP when they are risking millions of dollars and would have to keep a lot of employees quiet about it.
Oh Jesus are you really just copy and pasting this reply to everyone that explains how machine learning works?