this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
622 points (98.0% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Obviously this is creepy, but the technology is out there, one of those can't put the genie back in the bottle techs. You can and should look at the people generating the images as creeps, but ultimately we as a society need to learn to not put as much veracity or identity in images now.
With that said where the fuck did this model get its training data for 14 year olds. That sounds like a more serious issue.
Nowhere, at least for any model you could get your hands at in public places like civitai. Or, well, it's not like they can tell whether someone trained on those kinds of pictures but they're rightly nuking any underage/loli example images, as well as anyone who posts them, from orbit.
Generally speaking models can be very good at mixing concepts they have an understanding of, say a giraffe with zebra stripes, but that doesn't mean that you can just combine anything -- if you try to generate a nude human with zebra fur you're bound to get body paint, random skimpy zebra-striped clothing, or at most a fursuit, not convincing fur, unless you use a model trained by furries but at that point you'll have trouble generating faces without muzzles: The AI just doesn't know how actual zebrakin look like so it's either copping out or making stuff up.
I've never tried nor am I remotely attracted to that age range but I wouldn't be surprised if a paedophile would complain "these aren't kids they're scaled-down adults". Things like the difference between budding and small breasts, ask a biologist I haven't seen 14yold breasts in over two decades.
On another note though I'd much rather have paedophiles jack off to generated images than doing anything involving actual children, including creeping around. Lesser of two evils and all that. Therapy, of course, is preferable to both.
How do you know that these people replace harassment with these pictures? And not just do both, or even increase their fetishes?
What about the girls who's pictures were used as material for these generated images?
AFAIK psychologists simply don't know, and it might be a case by case thing.
As I explained, it might not be necessary to have any underage material in the training data.
Generally speaking I didn't come here to have a deep discussion about a very difficult moral and legal issue, I'll leave that up to the specialists. I wanted to say something about AI and somehow all answers I get are about the last tacked-on paragraph making a quick statement about me preferring keeping paedophiles away from kids.
I'll leave the judgement of that to psychologists. What should not be controversial, however, is the amount of direct harm avoided if one can be replaced by the other.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the less shitty.
I did not suggest anything. I expressed a preference: That it's better if a paedophile jacks off to generated pictures than if they molest actual children. What do you disagree with, there? That both situations are equally bad, that an equal amount of harm is occurring? Have you ever asked a victim about that.
Just for the record: Not by a far stretch all countries outlaw drawings, fiction, etc., but only as the German term goes "documents of child abuse".
You mean your accusation and I tend to do that for civility's sake as doing otherwise tends to result in shouting matches. It is AFAIK currently unknown whether, by and large, paedophiles having access to simulated material for their sexual gratification increases or decreases the incidence of child abuse happening. I have no idea either, you don't know better either, and it may very well differ on a case-by-case basis. All I'm saying is that I'd rather have them fapping than molesting children is that so hard to understand and why in the everloving fuck would you disagree with that: If anything it's you who's trivialising child abuse (and, look, see, I stopped to ignore your incitement and we're in an accusatory shouting match)
I MENTIONED A THIRD ONE IN THE SAME FUCKING PARAGRAPH.
You're not arguing in good faith so get fucked.
I asked whether you really meant what I read, you made a statement claiming I said things I very obviously didn't (because I said the exact opposite).
Had you instead asked "Did you mean to imply that there's only two options, that we really must select one?" you might have realised that I did, in fact, offer a third one from the very start.
You might not have intended to argue in bad faith but the result is still the same. If we had been talking about what chocolate pudding I would've let it slide but given the topic not applying high standards is irresponsible. Be careless in any other argument, but not here. If you want to claim to take the topic seriously then do.
I hope y'all don't stop arguing now. Awaiting season 2; fingers 🤞 crossed 🤞🔀
What's troll?
Not that they aren't both bad but I hate this false equivalence between images that were created by literally raping a child and filming that rape and images that were created purely from the imagination of the creator. This is what is actually enabling child abuse by treating both identically in legal terms because to the person attracted to children you suddenly made the cost identical while they probably prefer the real thing to a fake thing.
But most people and most legal jurisdictions do not make that distinction and that is my point. I am not saying either should be legal but at the very least one should carry a lot lower punishments, in a similar way that possession of stolen goods and possession of murder weapons are both punished but not with the same severity.
Right, the technology is out there so we as a society need to establish norms, customs, and yes, laws governing its use.
I'm pretty firmly on the side of there being legal consequences for taking pictures of real minors, running them through a service to create nude replicas, and then circulating those pictures. That is wrong on so many levels and could constitute any number of crimes without the AI component including, such as harassment. I mean, intentionally using someone's likeness to circulate embarrassing materials already had legal consequences. This is just a whole other level of ick on top.
Personally I don't see a difference between using an AI service or plain old Photoshop to create a fake nude picture of someone. Both should be punished in the same way and if law makers haven't caught up with the Photoshop version after 30 years they likely won't handle the AI version in this century either.
I would agree, though I wonder about the service mentioned that is dedicated to the process. My comment was in response to someone who seemed to think circulating fake nudes wasn't a problem, regardless of how they were generated.
I don't see the difference of photoshopping a convincing nude of the same minor vs. using AI to generate a nude of the same minor.
It's not enough to just look at the people who did this as creeps.