this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
254 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

68187 readers
5433 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
254
GenAI website goes dark after explicit fakes exposed (www.theregister.com)
submitted 2 days ago by Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
101 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mohamed@lemmy.ca 49 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Generated AI CP should be illegalized even if its creation did not technically harm anyone. The reason is, presumably it looks too close to real CP, so close that it: 1) normalizes consumption of CP, 2) grows a market for CP, and 3) Real CP could get off the hook by claiming it is AI.

While there are similar reasons to be against clearly not real CP (e.g. hentai), this type at least does not have problem #3. For example, there doesnt need to be an investigation into whether a picture is real or not.

[–] Nyoka@lemm.ee 7 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Fun fact it's already illegal. If it's indistinguishable from the real thing it's a crime.

[–] raptir@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I was under the impression that even clearly drawn it's already illegal, though it's a grey area since they can say "lol it's a 1000 year old demon that just looks like a child." Is that not the case?

[–] Nyoka@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Clearly drawn is hard to prosecute (and one might argue shouldn't be prosecuted, since obscenity laws are just... weird). However, the stuff that is photorealistic can be treated, legally, like the real thing.

[–] raptir@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago

That's interesting and led me down a wikipedia rabbit hole. So the law in the US says that fictional child pornography (i.e., where it is drawn and this is not "indistinguishable" from a minor) is illegal if it is "obscene." And the definition of "obscene" essentially comes down to "would the average member of the community find it offensive."

That takes "grey area" to a whole new level.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

The biggest issue with this line of thinking is, how do you prove it's CP without a victim. I suppose at a certain threshold it becomes obvious, but that can be a very blurry line (there was a famous case where a porn star had to be flown to a court case to prove the video wasn't CP, but can't find the link right now).

So your left with a crime that was committed with no victim and no proof, which can be really easy to abuse.

Edit: This is the case I was thinking of - https://nypost.com/2010/04/24/a-trial-star-is-porn/

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This sort of reminds myself on the discussion on "what is a women". Is Siri a women? Many might say so, but t the same time Siri is not even human.

The question on how old the person on a specific generated image might be and if it even depicts a person at all, can only be answered through society. There is no scientific or any logical answer for this.

So this will always have grey areas and differing opinions and can be rulings in different cultures.

In the end it is about discussions about ethics not logic.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Definitely, and that's why hard/strict laws or rules can be dangerous. Much like the famous "I know it when I see it" judgment on obscenity.

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Well my point is that pretty much all of our laws are build around ethic values, which are developed within a society. There is no logical or scientific reason that would make killing other people bad, but we still should have strict rules about this.

Laws are always built around soft things like "what is obscene", "at what point is someone naked in public", "How much alcohol can a drink have before it is a alcoholic beverage?", "did the person die of natural causes, or was killed by some event years ago, that wasn't properly treated."

Society decides what is acceptable and what isn't and that changes through time and culture.

Your argument is therefore not a good one, you have to make a case based on ethics.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What the fuck is AI being trained on to produce the stuff?

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 16 hours ago

if you have a soup of all liquids and a sieve that only lets coffee and ice cream through it produces coffee ice cream (metaphor, don't think too hard about it)

that's how gen ai works. each step sieves out raw data to get closer to the prompt.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Pictures of clothed children and naked adults.

Nobody trained them on what things made out of spaghetti look like, but they can generate them because smushing multiple things together is precisely what they do.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 points 20 hours ago

Given the "we spared no expense" attitude to the rest of the data these things are trained on, I fear that may be wishful thinking...

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

Well, that's somewhat reassuring.

Still reprehensible that it's being used that way, of course.

[–] swelter_spark@reddthat.com 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

AI CP seems like a promising way to destroy demand for the real thing. How many people would risk a prison sentence making or viewing the real thing when they could push a button and have a convincing likeness for free with no children harmed? Flood the market with cheap fakes and makers of the real thing may not find it profitable enough to take the risk.

[–] AnonomousWolf@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

I think it would boost the market for the real thing more.

It's possible that there are people that would become into AI generated CP if it was just allowed to be advertised on nsfw website.

And that would lead some to seek out the real thing. I think it's best to condemn it entirely

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dumbass@leminal.space 163 points 2 days ago (35 children)

Ai cp, they found AI generated cp that had been generated on their service...

Explicit fakes makes it sound less bad.

They were allowing AI cp to be made.

load more comments (35 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›