• Coffee Junky ❤️@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah exactly, I don’t want to see it but the same goes for a lot of weird fetishes.

    As long as no one is getting hurt I don’t really see the problem.

    • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      As long as no one is getting hurt I don’t really see the problem.

      It’d be hard to actually meet that premise, though. People are getting hurt.

      Child abuse imagery is used as both a currency within those circles to incentivize additional distribution, which means there is a demand for ongoing and new actual abuse of victims. Extending that financial/economic analogy, seeding that economy with liquidity, in a financial sense, might or might not incentivize the creation of new authentic child abuse imagery (that requires a child victim to create). That’s not as clear, but what is clear is that it would reduce the transaction costs of distributing existing child abuse imagery, which is a form of re-victimizing those who have already been abused.

      Child abuse imagery is also used as a grooming technique. Normalization of child sexual activity is how a lot of abusers persuade children to engage in sexual acts. Providing victimless “seed” material might still result in actual abuse happening down the line.

      If the creation of AI-generated child abuse imagery begins to give actual abusers and users of real child abuse imagery cover, to where it becomes more difficult to investigate the crime or secure convictions against child rapists, then the proliferation of this technology would make it easier to victimize additional children without consequences.

      I’m not sure what the latest research is on the extent to which viewing and consuming child porn would lead to harmful behavior down the line (on the one hand, maybe it’s a less harmless outlet for unhealthy urges, but on the other hand, it may feed an addictive cycle that results in net additional harm to society).

      I’m sure there are a lot of other considerations and social forces at play, too.

      • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean you could also go with a more sane model that still represses the idea while allowing some controlled environment for people whom it can really help.

        You could start by not prosecuting posession, only distribution. So it would still be effectively “blocked” everywhere like it’s (attempted to be) now, but distributing models for generation would be fine.

        Or you could create “known safe” (AI generated) ‘datasets’ to distribute to people, while knowing it was ethically created.

        is used as both a currency within those circles to incentivize additional distribution, which means there is a demand for ongoing and new actual abuse of victims

        A huge part of the idea is that if you create a surplus of supply it cannot work as a currency and actual abuse material will be drowned out and not wort it to create for the vast majority of people - too risky and irrelevant if you have a good enough alternative.

        You’re definitely right though that there would have to be more considerations.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          You seem to think it’s some kind of human right and people are entitled to have fapping material provided for them. No one is hurt if people don’t have fapping material.

          • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There is an argument to be made that allowing people with unhealthy desires a safe and harmless outlet, they will be less compelled to go with the harmful option.

            And, actually, I kinda want to disagree with the premise too. Even if it was provably true that noone gets hurt if there wasn’t porn, you can flip the question; why should it be banned if it doesn’t hurt anyone? Do you want to live in a world where anything that’s perceived as bad is just outright banned without much thought?

            • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are already making assumptions about whether or not producing artificial CP is harmful. But in truth nobody knows. And studies have shown that media indeed does influence us. It’s quite naive to assume that somehow just porn doesn’t.

              • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Artificial or not, this isn’t really a new idea. A similar argument can be made for existing CSAM and providing it under controlled conditions.

                And yeah, “nobody knows”, in huge part because doing such a study would be highly illegal under current CSAM laws in most parts of the world. So, paradoxically, you can’t even legally study how to help those people, even if they actively want to be helped and want to help you do research on it.

                Edit: Also, I’m not really making any assumptions; I literally said “there is an argument to be made”. I’m not making that argument because I don’t actually know enough. Just saying that it’s an option that should be explored.

    • the_third@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The model being able to generate something convincingly means it has seen equivalent examples, at least of parts of it in large enough quantity. That in itself means the model can’t exist in an ethical way.

      • Coffee Junky ❤️@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure that has to be true. Like you can ask an AI to give you a picture of a sailboat on the moon, while it has not ever seen a sailboat on the moon.

        It could be trained on photos that are not pornografic containing kids and images that are pornografic containing adults.

        • the_third@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          you can ask an AI to give you a picture of a sailboat on the moon

          Yes, correct. I’ll try to explain why that comparison isn’t entirely correct in this case and why my point stands: If you ask the model to draw an image of a sailboat on the moon it will take its context definition of “on the moon” and will likely end up selecting imagery of moon landscapes and will then put a sailboat in there. That sailboat will likely be assembled from frontal or sideviews of sailboats it has seen and will contain typical elements like a small bow pointing up and a keel line down the middle and some planks or a fibreglass-like structure to fill the are in between, depending on the style of things it has seen in the context of “lots of sailboat in this training picture”.

          If the model has never seen the underside of a sailboat it will likely reduce to “boat” and start to put a freightship or containership-type of bow and keel there, it probably has seen imagery of those in drydocks - the output wouldn’t look convincing to you as a viewer. In order to create a convincing sailboat in your example, the model needs a good idea what a sailboat looks like under the waterline. Which means, it has seen enough of that. Whithout further elaborating, I am sure you can understand how this implies massive ethical problems with generating a model for content that contains exploitative and abusive elements.

    • trevron@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pedophilia is not some weird fetish, though. It has no place in this world. Pedophiles just don’t deserve to have their sexual needs met in any way - period.

      A lot of the comments in here seem a little bit too sympathetic.

      • fox_the_apprentice@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A lot of the comments in here seem a little bit too sympathetic

        It is a mental illness. If fake images result in less real-world abuse then that’s a good thing.

        • trevron@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It wont stop abuse just like regular porn won’t stop women from getting sexually abused/raped. It being a mental illness does not make it any less harmful to society. It sucks that they were born wrong or were abused to the point of no return but that does not mean they should be allowed to look at regurgitated images of children to get off and its really weird to think otherwise.

          I am all for people having their rights and freedoms but that line ends at pedophiles for me. Unfortunately, they are less than human.

          • Coffee Junky ❤️@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do you think people that are gay are mentally ill? Do you think those people choose specifically to be attracted to people from the same sex? A lot of the same things can de said about people that are attracted to kids.

            I’m not trying to say we should in any shape or form tolerate child abuse. But it’s important that we recognize that there are people like this and they didn’t choose to be that way. People have no problem to talk about punishment, but don’t like to also accept that they are also victims in a way.

            • trevron@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, being gay is absolutely not a mental illness. But there are those who are mentally ill that think they are gay when they are not or were abused in a way that caused them to fear/be repulsed by the opposite sex in a major way.

              But being gay is also not a fetish and absolutely not comparable to being a pedophile.

              Pretty insulting to the gay community tbh.

          • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This took me 2 seconds to google.

            Perhaps the most serious accusation against pornography is that it incites sexual aggression. But not only do rape statistics suggest otherwise, some experts believe the consumption of pornography may actually reduce the desire to rape by offering a safe, private outlet for deviant sexual desires.

            “Rates of rapes and sexual assault in the U.S. are at their lowest levels since the 1960s,” says Christopher J. Ferguson, a professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University. The same goes for other countries: as access to pornography grew in once restrictive Japan, China and Denmark in the past 40 years, rape statistics plummeted. Within the U.S., the states with the least Internet access between 1980 and 2000—and therefore the least access to Internet pornography—experienced a 53 percent increase in rape incidence, whereas the states with the most access experienced a 27 percent drop in the number of reported rapes, according to a paper published in 2006 by Anthony D’Amato, a law professor at Northwestern University.

            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunny-side-of-smut/#:~:text=Perhaps the most serious accusation,outlet for deviant sexual desires.

            • trevron@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not saying it is impossible, but the simple fact that internet exists or not is absolutely not indicative of porn having a positive or negative effect. It is a pretty weak article to use as evidence against what I am saying when it states clearly that these are only associations and correlations and essentially guesswork.

              It is just as fair and, dare I say, more sensible to assume that places with internet have been more informed, more developed, and more progressive than places without and therefore have less uncivilized behaviour.

              I will preface this next part by saying I have no idea if it is true or not, and I don’t really want to search for it for obvious reasons. But my wife was telling me about a study done in some Asian country where they literally prescribe pedophiles with child-like dolls to “have a harmless outlet” and it was found that it only made their impulses stronger and they eventually grew bored by the dolls. Again, not sure how credible it is so take it with a grain of salt.

              I just don’t see any reason why we should deem it acceptable in any form.

              • CorruptBuddha@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not saying it is impossible, but the simple fact that internet exists or not is absolutely not indicative of porn having a positive or negative effect. It is a pretty weak article to use as evidence against what I am saying when it states clearly that these are only associations and correlations and essentially guesswork.

                It’s more than you’ve provided.

      • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        A “weird fetish” is, quite literally a paraphilia, just like pedophilia. We only care about the latter because it has the potential to hurt people if acted upon. There’s no difference, medically speaking.

        A lot of the comments in here seem a little bit too sympathetic.

        When you want to solve an issue you need to understand the people having it and have some compassion, which tends to include stuff like defending people who didn’t actually do anything harmful from being grouped with the kind who do act on their urges.

        • artaxadepressedhorse@lemmyngs.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Humans also tend to possess an abusive tendency, where, once they can justify labeling somebody as “bad” they can justify being cruel to them. I see people doing it all the time.