• Thalion@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    232
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Pretty sure the actual CP played a bigger role in the sentencing

    • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      146
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah this is a scary, clickbaity headline meant to invoke a negative response about AI. AI is a tool, like a computer or pipe wrench. It can be used for good or bad.

      The sicko got what he deserved, but the AI bit is rather over-the-top.

      • Ænima@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        Username totally checks out. Definitely not AI or a bot.

    • Ziglin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      75
      ·
      11 months ago

      How come you are already using a short form, how often do you talk about this kind of thing???

  • Daxtron2@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    He used a web based stable diffusion to generate CP. Absolute genius level move 😂

    • IzzyScissor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      100
      ·
      11 months ago

      Things to never say before committing a crime:

      “Wait, let me sign in with my Google account first.”

      • CALIGVLA@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        People in general really. Some of the stuff your average person does on the internet and their devices absolutely stumps me, and I’m not even that tech savvy.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ease of use, plus people anticipate that there will be much more “noise” drowning their activities out in the daily torrent of information. Then back to your point again, people are dumb and forget it’s relatively easy to lookout for certain things even with enormous data flow.

      • Daxtron2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I really wouldn’t be surprised. I’ve seen the average person, so many idiots.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    They should become a Republican speaker. Then they’ll get a TON of support from the Protect The Children crowd!

    • papertowels@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Just chipping in with a technicical answer - a model can know what thing A is, also be shown a thing B, and compose the two. Otherwise models would never be able to display anything that doesn’t exist yet.

      In this particular case, there’s stock imagery of children online, and there’s naked adults online, so a model can combine the two.

      This case seems to be AI fear mongering, the dude had actual CP…

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Your claims backbone is that models don’t know the differences between a child’s naked body and an adults, yes?

          What happens if you ask chat gpt “what are the anatomical differences between human child and adult bodies?”

          I’m sure it’ll give you an accurate response.

          https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/05/1015754/avocado-armchair-future-ai-openai-deep-learning-nlp-gpt3-computer-vision-common-sense/

          To test DALL·E’s ability to work with novel concepts, the researchers gave it captions that described objects they thought it would not have seen before, such as “an avocado armchair” and “an illustration of a baby daikon radish in a tutu walking a dog.” In both these cases, the AI generated images that combined these concepts in plausible ways.

          • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            11 months ago

            You genuinely don’t think CSAM is used in the training of these AI models…? And then you used a chat model to essentially google the differences in text and not visually?..

            Why did you feel the need to jump in and defend stuff like this?

            • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              23
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Didnt they then post a link showing that dall-e could combine two different things into something its never seen before?

              Did you read the whole comment? Even if the text model describing things is irrelevant the dall-e part is not.

              • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                23
                ·
                11 months ago

                It is irrelevant. Armchairs are not people. Dali does not know what is inside of those objects. Or under their fabrics for instance. Ask Dali to cut open the Avacado armchair.

                I’m sorry if I’m not buying your defense of CSAM.

                But the Dali use case of “an illustration of a baby daikon radish in a tutu walking a dog" can’t possibly be the best example to use here to defend child porn.

                • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  20
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  I’m sorry if I’m not buying your defense of CSAM.

                  Thanks for making it clear you’re either arguing in bad faith, or that you’re incapable of talking about actual issues the moment anyone mentions CSAM.

                • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Im sorry? My defense of CSAM?

                  What defence of CSAM?

                  Do you require mental assistance? You appear to be having some kind of aneurism…

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              The original comment said it’s impossible for a model to be able to produce CP if it was never exposed to it.

              They were uninformed, so as someone who works with machine learning I informed them. If your argument relies on ignorance it’s bad.

              Re: text model, someone already addressed this. If you’re going to make arguments and assumptions about things I share without reading them, there’s no need for me to bother with my time. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

              Have a good one!

            • Player2@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Just like all the words you used to compose that sentence already existed and yet you made it yourself, language models can take tokens that they know generally go together and make original sentences. Your argument is that a dictionary exists, therefore authors are lying to everyone by saying that they wrote something.

              • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                11 months ago

                Hey, just so you know, this guy is a crazy troll. He’s clocked 130 comments on his 9 hr old profile, and almost all of them are picking fights and deflecting. Save yourself the trouble. His goto line is “I don’t remember that”

  • Zuberi 👀@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    Blocking any/all users of the “it’s just art” and the “no kids were actually used so it’s not child pornography” crowds.

    Christ, the comments just kept getting worse.

    • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I mean for people that are providing a moral defense of this? Yeah, no, fuck them into the sun.

      But from a legal perspective, that’s kind of the problem isn’t it? Because no kids are involved in the actual production of the images, this creates a huge legal question - isn’t this constitutionally protected in countries that have Freedom of Expression/Speech?

      I mean this is obviously vile and this person is a danger to children… but would this be illegal in the USA and Canada and other countries that have freedoms that make it very difficult to prosecute this kind of speech?

      There’s also the wrinkle that it’s being made of real people. Not just that it’s kids in general, but real, actual, specific kids. Most countries have some form of “use of likeness” protections, but that’s essentially making this into a copyright dispute, and a pretty grey one at that.

      • jagungal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not sure what laws the states or Canada have, but it’s considered child pornography if it’s a depiction of CSA, regardless of whether it’s an adult acting, or cartoons, or AI. I suspect at least some states in the US have similar laws.

      • Thranduil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I dont mind loli hentai but thats as far as im ok with the moment it looks real its a problem imo.

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s an extremely limited take on it that I would expect from Sunday rags. “I have made up my mind, and since I decide, I will simply make sure that nobody gets to discuss this.”

      Thanks, reddit, can you fuck off back there now?

      • Elivey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Sorry we’re not interested in discussing child pornography as art, because we’re not disgusting pedophile apologists.

        We aren’t making sure no one discusses this, you can have your nuanced discussions about child pornography with other pedophiles and pedo apologists, you won’t be having it with us.

        • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          This is so tiring. You’re just a fascist in disguise. You could belong to either side. The sheer fact that you are so easily flipped out over any topic of conversation makes it impossible to communicate either which way.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    “As a child psychiatrist, Tatum knew the damaging, long-lasting impact sexual exploitation has on the wellbeing of victimized children,” said US Attorney Dena J.

    The trial evidence cited by the government includes a secretly-made recording of a minor (a cousin) undressing and showering, and other videos of children participating in sex acts.

    “Additionally, trial evidence also established that Tatum used AI to digitally alter clothed images of minors making them sexually explicit,” prosecutors said.

    “Specifically, trial evidence showed that Tatum used a web-based artificial intelligence application to alter images of clothed minors into child pornography.”

    In prepared remarks [PDF] delivered at a US Senate subcommittee hearing earlier this year, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, "GPT-4 is 82 percent less likely to respond to requests for disallowed content compared to GPT-3.5, and we use a robust combination of human and automated review processes to monitor for misuse.

    A recent report from investigative organization Balkan Insight says groups like Thorn have been supporting CSAM detection legislation to make online content scanning compulsory in part because they provide that service.


    The original article contains 457 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Would be good if we could use this for porn. It’s better than anyone actually being in porn. If AI takes over then less people would be trafficked and in the porn industry

      • UnculturedSwine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        What would help with sex trafficking is legalizing and regulating prostitution and destigmatizing it.

        • WuTang @lemmy.ninja
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Regulating prostitution?

          Because you think it is a normal, thought life style? A girl having a normal education (school, not abused during her youth, abandoned, fled war/guerrilla), eating to her fill would choose this path?!

          • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            So, because they had a rough life and choose to sell sex, they shouldn’t get workplace protections? Protection of the law?

            Bet you think all drugs should be illegal as well.

            • WuTang @lemmy.ninja
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Or maybe, providing them better opportunities in our societies than selling their bodies to a disgusting guy?!

              Bet you think all drugs should be illegal as well.

              i don’t know what you are smoking right now but it’s not helping you for dialog.

              • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Could be that some people actually choose to do the work and if it was regulated and destigmatised, opinions like yours would disappear.

          • burchalka@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yep, some hints are videos and stories of people asking the prostitute to clean their house or cook for them, only to be told to get lost…

        • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          So, you’re okay with people making porn with your image? What about deepfakes of you committing rape? Or participating in CSAM?

          • piracy_is_good_xdd@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            People get trafficked for porn, CSAM solutions are being deployed around the world. But yeah I get your point. Either way, both options are fucked in general I guess

    • Elivey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s worse than reddit up in here. At least the psychos calling AI CP “art” would be met with comments that would be upvoted even more, not down voted into the negatives.

    • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Disgusting to know just how many people are sad, disgusting pieces of shit. CSAM is CSAM, virtual or real. The distinction does not matter.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    A bit sensationalist there - article states he’d videoed minors in sexual acts. Probably what got him his well deserved prison stint.

    Though I must say, the AI part alone should be enough to rule him out of a career around kids!

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I missed that paragraph when I skimmed the article. Thanks!

      The trial evidence cited by the government includes a secretly-made recording of a minor (a cousin) undressing and showering, and other videos of children participating in sex acts.

      Edit: also, I wondered how he got caught, but this was probably how.

  • Infiltrated_ad8271@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    In this case there are several crimes, but in the other one mentioned about a korean there is nothing, only possession of generated content arguing that there is high realism (someone could say the same even of a sketch). To imprison for acts that have neither victims nor any harm either directly or indirectly, is more aberrant than possessing that.

    PS: I’m just talking about legality and rights, I know it’s controversial and I’m sure someone has something to argue against it, but if you’re going to accuse me of being a pedo just get lost you moron.

    • Veraxus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Careful, any time I point this out, the fascists come out of the woodwork to call me a pedo.

      Criminalizing the creation, possession, or viewing of entirely artificial artwork is beyond unethical; it’s extraordinarily evil. I don’t care if you find someone’s artwork gross, troubling, distasteful, immoral, etc… that’s art. Victimizing real people is not “art” or “speech” or “expression”… so as long as that isn’t happening there is no ethical grounds whatsoever for restricting a persons exercise of expression, especially in private.

      Social consequences for creating, sharing, viewing certain artwork is one thing… but the government or law punishing someone for it is a different thing entirely.

      That said, this specific case is different in that the doctor DID in fact victimize real children by using secret photos and recordings of them to create the images. That crosses way across the line that I laid out above. Additionally, he possessed actual CSAM (which he may have made himself), and so is absolutely guilty of sexually victimizing real children. That guy deserves everything he gets in prison.

      • sugartits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Criminalizing the creation, possession, or viewing of entirely artificial artwork is beyond unethical; it’s extraordinarily evil.

        No it isn’t.

        I don’t care if you find someone’s artwork gross, troubling, distasteful, immoral, etc… that’s art.

        No, it’s child porn.

        Careful, any time I point this out, the fascists come out of the woodwork to call me a pedo.

        Can’t imagine why.

        You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?

        So it’s wrong for it to be based on one child, but according to you the AI “art” (as you keep calling it) is okay as long as there are thousands of victims instead?

        So you’re cool with images of 6 year olds being penetrated by a 40 year old as long as “tHe Ai DrEw iT sO nObOdY gOt HuRt”? I guess you could just set it as your desktop and phone wallpaper and everything would be fine. Let me know how that works out for you.

        That’s some stunning mental gymnastics right there.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?

          Can you share a source? Just like how people utilize the internet to distribute CP, there are undoubtedly circles where people are using ml for CP. However my understanding is that by and large, popular models are not intentionally trained on any.

          • sugartits@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I am categorically not researching that.

            Put it this way…

            The pedofiles that are smart enough to not get caught and use technology like tor and encrypt everything and can figure out how to use stable diffusion will be the pedofiles that have custom models trained on real children.

            And if you and me consider the possibility in a casual conversation online, they have also considered the possibility, heavily researched and implemented it if it’s at all possible. And they know how to not get caught.

            But it’s okay, it’s “art” after all and we can’t ban art because that’s evil… Right… Right?

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              …okay, seeing as you haven’t actually done any research, yet arrived at a conclusion, a conversation about this is going to be difficult.

              Let’s get more specific so we can have an actual conversation. When you say “the AI”, what do you mean? Dall-e, midjourney, or some guy training and using their own model on a local computer?

              Are you familiar with large models being able to compose concepts they’ve seen, to produce something not found in its training data?

              • sugartits@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                What on earth makes you think I wish to have an extended conversation about this?

                Child porn is not art. Even if AI made it.

                Banning child porn is not immoral or evil.

                Simple as that.

                If you cannot accept that basic premise then I have nothing to say to you.

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  I have said literally nothing about ethics.

                  You used a technical assertion in your argument. Out of curiosity, I wanted to learn more and asked you for sources.

                  You can neither prove nor are you capable of discussing said technical assertion. I am now going to leave the conversation. Seeing as you can’t prove or even discuss it, I’d hope you avoid using it in the future, or at least learn more about it.

        • Veraxus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?

          Disingenuous and misleading statement. No readily available AI is trained on CP.

          So it’s wrong for it to be based on one child, but according to you the AI “art” (as you keep calling it) is okay as long as there are thousands of victims instead?

          Disingenuous and misleading statement. I’m guessing you don’t understand how AI works. As for AI output, a randomly generated nonexistent person is nonexistent. Simple as that.

          Sidenote: I disapprove of nonconsensual Photoshop and AI illustrations of real people, except for fair use cases such as satire. AI is just another illustrative tool, and the choice of tool is beside the point.

          So you’re cool with images of 6 year olds being penetrated by a 40 year old as long as “tHe Ai DrEw iT sO nObOdY gOt HuRt”?

          No, I am not. And that is still utterly unimportant. It doesn’t matter how I feel about someone’s fictitious illustrations, sculptures, writings, or anything else created by a person or AI that is wholly fictitious.

          That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.

          • sugartits@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.

            It does matter how myself and wider society view disgusting content. It matters a lot. And society absolutely has a say of it’s acceptance or otherwise to such content. You saying otherwise is absurd.

            In the same way that I can’t and shouldn’t write something incrediblely racist and pretend it’s ‘art’. Even if AI made it.

            Attempting to give AI child porn a pass, as you are doing for some baffling reason, absolutely will create further harm further down the line.

        • Elivey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I know you know this, but you are not crazy. I’m astonished you are being down voted so hard. The pedo apology is so strong it’s making me not want to use Lemmy. This thread is worse than reddit.

          Terrifying.

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    11 months ago

    I look forward to the inevitable news story about an inmate crushing his skull with an exercise weight.