446
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 03 Dec 2023
446 points (95.1% liked)
News
23397 readers
3575 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Maybe I'm just naive of how many protections we're actually granted but shouldn't this already fall under CP/CSAM legislation in nearly every country?
Would it? How do they prove the age of an AI generated image?
By.... checking the age of the person depicted in the image?
...who by definition is AI generated and does not, in fact, exist?
What? But they literally do exist, and they're hurting from it. Did you even read the post?
While you're correct, many of these generators are retaining the source image and only generating masked sections, so the person in the image is still themselves with effectively photoshopped nudity, which would still qualify as child pornography. That is an interesting point that you make though
The article is about real children being used as the basis for AI-generated porn. This isn't about entirely fabricated images.
Just ask ChatGPT to cut them in half and count the rings.
You mean the real person being depicted? So this wouldn't apply to fake people?
Which fake people?
If the porn were of non-real people.
You can't ask questions on lemmy - people assume you have lots of subtext that isn't there.
Ship of Thesseus
IDK why this dumb thought experiment makes me so grumpy everyone someone invokes it, but you're going to have to explain how it's relevant here.
How many pieces do you have to change before it's not closely enough related? If every piece is modified, is it the same base image? If it's not the same image, when does it cease to represent the original and must be reassessed? If it's no longer the image of a real person, given the extreme variety in both real and imagined people, how can an AI image ever be illegal? If you morph between an image of a horse and an illegal image, at what exact point does it become illegal? What about a person and an illegal image? What about an ai generated borderline image and an illegal image? At some point, a legal image changes into an illegal image, and that point is nearly impossible to define. Likewise, the transition between a real and imagined person is the same, or the likeness between two similar looking real, but different, or imagined people.
As with any law, there will undoubtedly be cases in which it is difficult to discern whether or not a law has been broken, but courts decide on innocence or guilt in such cases every day. A jury would be asked to decide whether a a reasonable third party is likely to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the image depicts a person who is under 18.
Whether or not the depicted person is real or imagined is not relevant in many / most jurisdictions.
If you make a picture today of someone based on how they looked 10 years ago, we say it's depicting that person as the age they were 10 years ago. How is what age they are today relevant?
I'm unsure of the point you're trying to make?
It's relevant in this case because the age they are today is underage. A picture of them 10 years ago is underage. And a picture of anyone made by AI to deep fake them nude is unethical irregardless of age. But it's especially concerning when the goal is to depict underage girls as nude. The age thing specifically could get a little complicated in certain situations ig, but the intent is obvious most of the time.
I'm obviously not advocating or defending any particular behavior.
Legally speaking, why is what age they are today relevant rather than the age they are depicted as in the picture? Like, imagine we have a picture 20 years from now of someone at age 37. It's legally fine until it's revealed it was generated in 2023 when the person in question was 17? If the exact same picture was generated a year later it's fine again?
Basically, yes.
Is the person under-age at the time the image was generated? and ... Is the image sexual in nature?
If yes, then generating or possessing such an image ought to be a crime.
Won't somebody think of the make believe computer generated cartoon children?!
Someone has to pay... this image is only 2 hours old....TWO HOURS OLD, YOU ANIMALS
In Germany, it would.
Not a lawyer, but 99% sure it's the same here in Canada as well.
Australia too. Hentai showing underage people is illegal here. From my understanding it's all a little grey depending on the state and whether the laws are enforced, but if it's about victimisation the law will be pretty clear.
Absolutely absurd. Criminalizing drawings is the stupidest thing in the world.
This case should already be illegal under harassment or similar laws. There's no reason to make drawings illegal
In germany even a written story about it is illegal. it is considered "textual CSAM" then.
Nah dude, I am perfectly cool with animated depictions of child sexual exploitation being in the same category as regualr child exploitation regardless of the fact that she's actually a 10,000 old midget elf or whatever paper thin explanation they provide not to be considered paedos.
Well that's just absurd and you should rethink your position using logic rather than emotion.
Well that's an emotional response that includes no specifics or appeals to logic.
Lol.
You clearly have no logic so I'm not going to appeal to it. Just a general comment.
I am shocked to my core that you would write off an observation as having no logic. Shocked I tell you!
Not an observation. You're saying you don't care about actual victims, children actually being abused. Real, live victims. That's not worse than someone drawing some pictures you don't like?
Wow, you got me. That's totally what I am saying that you had to fabricate a quote that represents the argument you want to have.
Fabricate a quote? I literally quoted the start of the thread.
Misattribute then? My only position was that your rebuttal was not logical while asking for logic, which I thought was funny and "absurd" as you put it.
First of all I didn't say any of things you're inferring from the quote you posted.
But yes, I think sexually exploitative imagery of children is just as vile and disgusting as behavior that directly harms children and very indicative of someone who may attempt to harm a child in the future.
It was done by another underage boy, how would the law act in this case?
Yes, underage people can be charged.
https://www.tribtoday.com/news/local-news/2019/01/teen-sexting-is-child-porn/
Edit: Of course this is actual pictures, not generated.
So basically the link you posted has nothing to do with OP LOL