I mean banning use cases is deffo fair game, generating kiddy porn should be treated as just as heinous as making it the “traditional” way IMO
pineapplelover@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Huh. They actually do something right for once instead of spending years trying to ban A.I tools. I’m pleasantly surprised.
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 7 months ago
General_Effort@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Yikes! The implication is that it does not matter if a child was victimized. It’s “heinous”, not because of a child’s suffering, but because… ?
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Man imagine trying to make “ethical child rape content” a thing. What were the lolicons not doing it for ya anymore?
As for how it’s exactly as heinous, it’s the sexual objectification of a child, it doesn’t matter if it’s a real child or not, the mere existence of the material itself is an act of normalization and validation of wanting to rape children.
Being around at all contributes to the harm of every child victimised by a viewer of that material.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I see. Since the suffering of others does not register with you, you must believe that any “bleeding heart liberal” really has some other motive. Well, no. Most (I hope, but at least some) people are really disturbed by the suffering of others.
I take the “normalization” argument seriously. But I note that it is not given much credence in other contexts; violent media, games, … Perhaps the “gateway drug” argument is the closest parallel.
In the very least, it drives pedophiles underground where they cannot be reached by digital streetworkers, who might help them not to cause harm. Instead, they form clandestine communities that are already criminal. I doubt that makes any child safer. But it’s not about children suffering for you, so whatever.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Idk, making CP where a child is raped vs making CP where no children are involved seem on very different levels of bad to me.
Both disgusting, but certainly not exactly the same. One has a non-consenting child being abused, the other doesn’t. One is worse than the other.
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Man imagine trying to make the case for Ethical Child Rape Material.
You are not going to get anywhere with this line of discussion, stop now before you say something that deservedly puts you on a watchlist.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’m not making the case for that at all, and I find you attempting to make out that I am into child porn a disgusting debate tactic. That’s very obviously not what I’m saying.
You’ll notice I called it repulsive in my comment.
The fact that you apparently don’t care at all about the child suffering side of it is quite troubling.
CyberSeeker@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
Bingo. If at the limit, the purpose of an AI is to be indistinguishable from human generated content, then watermarking and AI detection algorithms will be absolutely useless.
The ONLY means to do this is to have creators verify their human-generated (or vetted) content at the time of publication (providing positive proof), as opposed to attempting to retroactively trying to determine if content was generated by a human (proving a negative).