68
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

AI-created child sexual abuse images ‘threaten to overwhelm internet’::Internet Watch Foundation finds 3,000 AI-made abuse images breaking UK law

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.sdf.org 94 points 1 year ago

Holy hyperbole, batman! Threaten to overwhelm the internet!

Someone's hungry for clicks today, eh, The Guardian?

AI-generated CSAM is illegal under the Protection of Children Act 1978, which criminalises the taking, distribution and possession of an “indecent photograph or pseudo photograph” of a child.

Aaaand there you go. This is nothing new. There have been laws on the books for decades to help deal with this exact problem. Someone just slapped "AI" on the story to gin up worry.

[-] Bell@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago

They are trying to gather support for the new invasions into your privacy that are required "to save the poor children"

[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 year ago

Those poor AI children!

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree with your assessment wholly. There was a case in the US (don't recall the details) maybe 15 years ago or so where the "cp" was actually drawings of the Simpson's children nude. Judge held that it didn't matter if it was real or fake. This sort of thing isn't new.

I only came to comment that I would not have predicted that AI would be used this way, but am not at all surprised by it.

[-] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 9 points 1 year ago

would not have predicted

You must not have been on the internet for very long

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Probably longer than most people but I often make the mistake of believing that humans tend to strive for good in spite of everything that indicates otherwise.

[-] there1snospoon@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 year ago

Some do. Some don’t. There will always be bad actors.

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Didn't the Simpson's movie from 16 years ago get away with showing Bart's genitals? Are we still leaning on the "know it when I see it" definition of sexually explicit material?

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

They do it in Dragon Ball as well. I think the point is that if it's just passing nudity (i.e. a child being a child), then it's not sexual.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The judge was later found to be hosting CP on his personal website, of a very similar nature.

[-] baked_tea@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

What the heeeell is this true?

[-] scottywh@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

That was Australia, not the US.

Look under Australia in the following Wikipedia page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

We were all worrying AI was going to murder us to save us from ourselves; turns out it's going to do it by literally burying us in CASM.

Asimov was wrong!

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
68 points (73.6% liked)

Technology

59205 readers
2816 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS