Comment

Comment on Child psychiatrist jailed after using AI to make pornographic deep-fakes of kids

You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?

Disingenuous and misleading statement. No readily available AI is trained on CP.

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?

Disingenuous and misleading statement. I’m guessing you don’t understand how AI works. As for AI output, a randomly generated nonexistent person is nonexistent. Simple as that.

Sidenote: I disapprove of nonconsensual Photoshop and AI illustrations of real people. AI is just another illustrative tool, and the choice of tool is beside the point.

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”?

No, I am not. And that is still utterly unimportant. It doesn’t matter how I feel about someone’s fictitious illustrations, sculptures, writings, or anything else created by a person or AI that is wholly fictitious.

That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sugartits@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.

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.

source
- DaDragon@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
  - sugartits@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
  - mayoi@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Oh that’s very simple, it’s irrelevant whether child porn generated by AI is legal or not, it’s reality that you need to possess actual child porn to train AI with it before it can generate more.
    
    You already incriminate yourself before generating the “”“art”“”.
    
    source
    Whoresradish@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    You don’t need CP to get ai to make CP. Please educate yourself on ai technology.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Rhoeri@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
It’s not art you pedo. Gtfo

source