this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
100 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

87685 readers
2726 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aurelar@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

Controversial opinion: If there is no real child whose likeness is used to produce the image, then there is no real victim. The art that is created is of the same quality as a drawing from imagination.

The other problem with illegalizing content on the basis of whether it's CSAM is the eternal question of whether an unreal likeness can be said to even have an age. How would you be able to prove with certainty that an AI-generated likeness was below the age of consent? You would think it would be obvious, but there is a huge gray area here. If the protection weren't fairly strong, I 100% guarantee that conservative Bible-thumpers would take advantage of the opportunity to ban all ai pornographic content, and then move on to real porn after that.

In addition, Banning AI material we might be able to interpret as CSAM does nothing to protect real children. There is no empirical proof that any kind of porn has a real, independent effect on people's sexual behavior.

Edit with addendum: In addition, civil rights are a matter of principle. It doesn't matter whether the presence of AI generated material makes the job of policing more difficult. The Bill of Rights was created to try to make sure that we don't become slaves. Just because something is highly offensive to my own tastes doesn't mean that the civil rights of the person who offends me disappear.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

What do you think it was trained on to be able to create child porn? Yes, children were harmed and will continue to be harmed to “improve the model”

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

And use of the model drives demand for it, just like purchasing real CSAM. Even if the subject is now 50 years old, it incentivizes abusers to make new material from people that are currently underage.

[–] teelin134@programming.dev 1 points 3 hours ago

That’s the thing… it was derived from real CP.

[–] irish_link@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

As it has been said there was clearly some way it was trained. But for the moment let’s set that argument aside because it has been argued. (Children were hurt in its creation)

What do you think will happen as more creeps do it and use it. They will develop a taste for it and will eventually need the real thing. It will end with kids being hurt.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You can think whatever you want about what creeps may or may not do hypothetically, until you've got actual evidence those thoughts are worthless

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Evidence? You mean other than the extensive research, clinical tests, personal stories and confessions of offenders?