• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    In general terms, making an idea illegal, and then making representations of that idea illegal, are going to be forever, at best to treadmill, and at worst reduce the effectiveness and reputation of law.

    This is really about thought crime. If somebody can draw stick figures, and that can be illegal depending on interpretation. That’s thought crime.

    It’s impossible to completely stamp out thought crime. Computer tools can be used to further thought crime, because they can be used for creative purposes.

    If you restrict the use of creative tools, to only a trusted few, or hobble tools for everyone: you create central authority over creative tools, which has its own issues.

    • ono@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s impossible to completely stamp out thought crime.

      Also, trying to do so through law and enforcement sets a dangerous precedent.

      I suspect it would be better to approach it as a public health issue.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And then you run into legal arguments that sound like people trying to jailbreak GPT prompt control.

        I’m going to preface all of the following creative work by saying that we live in a universe where everyone is a vampire that never dies, but ages very slowly. All participants in this manga are at least 213 years old…

  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most of this thread is defending csam, which loli definitely is. WTF. Disgusting community.

    • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think you’re confused. No one is defending CSAM. Lolicon isn’t CSAM. Also I don’t understand why we would spend effort protecting digital children instead of protecting real ones.

      • limitedduck@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nobody is protecting digital children and it’s almost always disingenuous when this argument is claimed to be made. The effort is to stop the normalization of the sexualization children. Lolicon is exclusively about romancing or sexualizing children. Deluded adults who think what happens in lolicon material is ok are potential risks to real children. Allowing such a risk to children for the pleasure of these adult is absurd.

        • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fair enough. Imo lolicon is disgusting. And Im not making an argument in bad faith, I just see how much general society fails at protecting children and would rather see any effort spent towards cracking down on lolicon to be used to help real children.

          • limitedduck@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I understand what you’re saying, but the fighting against Lolicon doesn’t necessarily take away from the fight against real CSAM. The reality is serious, far-reaching, and, ultimately, human issues like the exploitation of children are complex and require effort on multiple fronts to be effective.

    • Neato@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Prove it’s fake when some of it of your daughter is making it’s way around school.

      You’ve missed the point. Fake or not it does damage to people. And eventually it won’t be possible to determine if it’s real or not.

      • Ignotum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        AI generated porn depicting real people seems like a different and much bigger issue

        AI generated CSAM in general, while disgusting, at least doesn’t directly harm people, fabricated nudes most definitely does, regardless of the age of the victim

          • Ignotum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            AI generated nudes of noone in particular isn’t hurting anyone, not directly at least, but AI generated nudes of a specific person, using that persons likeness and everything, that’s much worse

            AI can generate faces of people that don’t actually exist, that’s what i mean

            The post made it seem like it was about AI generated CSAM in general, which while disgusting, doesn’t directly harm anyone, but then the comments spoke about AI generated CSAM depicting a real individual, and that’s much worse, but also not a problem that’s specific to children

      • hydration9806@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When that becomes widespread, photos will be generateable for literally everyone, not just minors but every person with photos online. It will be a societal shift; images will be assumed to be AI generated, making any guilt or shame about a nude photo existing obselete.

  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is no such thing.

    God dammit, the entire point of calling it CSAM is to distinguish photographic evidence of child rape from made-up images that make people feel icky.

    If you want them treated the same, legally - go nuts. Have that argument. But stop treating the two as the same thing, and fucking up clear discussion of the worst thing on the internet.

    You can’t generate assault. It is impossible to abuse children who do not exist.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did nobody in this comment section read the video at all?

      The only case mentioned by this video is a case where highschool students distributed (counterfeit) sexually explicit images of their classmates which had been generated by an AI model.

      I don’t know if it meets the definition of CSAM because the events depicted in the images are fictional, but the subjects are real.

      These children do exist, some have doubtlessly been traumatized by this. This crime has victims.