There is also an active court case and investigation into elons grok with claims it used real CSAM to train its models on.
To all the people saying that it was trained on real material and should be illegal because of that I agree, but do we hold the person who thought they were creating fake CSAM via ai responsible or the company?
Not saying generating ai CSAM is good, just that if they dont know its based off real material
I agree, but should be and are now are two entirely different legal issues. I agree with the judge's ruling. I also agree with what he supposedly stressed afterwards, which is that lawmakers need to do their job and make it illegal.
Yeah. It's sad that it should even be a question. You would think a law such as this would pass unanimously, but more often than not other more nefarious things get shoved into laws that people think are guaranteed to pass, and as a result get shot down.
Yeah, the case against Grok using images of real people isn't as clear cut as we'd like it to be either. No artist has ever drawn the human form with pencil or paint, without basing it on people they saw. We draw from our real world experiences with all generation of art by the Human hand. You paint a landscape? You are basing it on the real mountains, lakes, fields and forests you have seen. You draw an alien landscape? You are still adapting what you've actually seen into what you think might be possible. While I think the people who possessed the CSAM that got fed to Grok are probably liable for possession at the very least, Grok producing adaptations of that work probably isn't illegal. Provided that the subjects are sufficiently different as to be different people... I frankly don't have the legal training to say.
Personally I think it's tough. You (Society) want to protect the vulnerable, and you should probably put some rules in place about CSAM generation even in the fictional context. But that does skirt very close to the old morality laws. And the Marquis de Sade still has his works published. I'd not envy the person who has to draw that particular legal line.
Holding the company accountable would solve the issue on a systemic basis
If ai executives were put behind bars for having child porn as part of their AI LLM training database that would protect far more children than Elon musk’s preferred legal approach of don’t blame us just blame the user
AI companies should be required by law to audit their database and LLM training materials to check to see if CSAM exists and if so to actively remove such materials from their systems
Thank you for actually being reasonable here. It certainly is morally wrong, but the implications of making it illegal are pretty terrible for other first-amendment rights
I think there are better ways to broach the subject than to make a movie about a dude who marries a woman just to fawn over her underage daughter.
A story about a detective suspecting something. Finding his journal, saving the girl can still tell the same story without watching a 40 year old creeping on a 12 year old for 2 hours.
Because god forbid a piece of art make you uncomfortable. The revulsion and contempt you feel for Humboldt is the message, if it were as sterile as a procedural it would be worthless.
No, it's not. In no free country should anything totally fake with zero victims be turned into a crime. If so then movies with murder plots would have to be a crime.
Yeah but you'd be naive to think this is the problem with this. The fact is, the existence of these works, and the fact that Grok was trained on existing criminal material is problematic. Why hasn't Grok provided enough information on the people who provided him with CSAM to train him in the first place, that the authorities were able to intervene? There are crimes here that should be answered to.
I haven't seen AI do anything you couldn't do with Photoshop with a little more work. AI is the boogie man at the moment, but I can make child porn with my pencil if I wanted to. You can't make a law against that.
Its not illegal anywhere in the US due to the Supreme court ruling that as long as no real minor is involved it is free speech so you can draw whatever you want. If you actually read things you would see that is the entire justification for this ruling.
Let me spell it out for you clearly since you are not very smart. This is about a US case. The US SUPREME COURT has ruled it is protected by free speech. End of story. No laws can be passed to abridge this speech -
Understand? It is not possible.
The judge is saying you need to pass legislation regarding AI in order to prevent this but the speech itself is protected. Comprende?
The judge in this case ruled the way he did because of a previous Supreme court ruling. He says so himself. Don't comment on things you haven't even looked at.
You like to speak in absolutes, but let me put one to you.
These images are free speech and therefore protected by the first amendment, and cannot be regulate by law as per your argument right?
Photos are free speech in the US as per previous Supreme court affirmation on visual arts and creation of media as forms of expression are protected by the First amendment.
Yet there are photos that are illegal (CSAM for one, but photos taken on private property would be sufficient to run into legal issues curtailing the photographers free speech).
This means that there is a role for legislation to curtail free speech. This is inescapable. Which means that u/aspghost is correct.
If you want another example, consider privilege. Doctor/Patient, or Attorney/client. Things told to these professionals would be illegal to share without permission, and if the Doctor/Lawyer were to pierce this privilege there would be legal consequences enforced by the government. Criminal charges are possible.
Thank you. More broadly speaking, even if the constitution is considered an immutable, unbreachable religious text, a brief look at any actual religion and its schisms, interpretations and the behaviour of its adherents should make it very clear that by and large people will find a way to do whatever the fuck they want.
While I find the idea of creating such content abhorrent, describing/showing such things is legal in art and books, it’s a fine line I agree, but we need better definitions if we want to make this illegal. Sadly I agree that legally speaking this was the correct call. That said I don’t think we should allow realistic AI generated images at all, it only seems to cause problems. I’m prepared for the downvotes.
Honestly we just need to look at how people are using ai to make revenge porn of people. I agree there should always be some kind of uncanny valley to it.
I think art and fictional content should generally be protected. Thought crimes absolutely should not be a thing. People can have horrible, fucked up thoughts and create content off of that. You can shun them, kick them off your private platform, refuse to support them in any way sure. But making that sort of expression illegal is just a fast track to getting LGBT and other marginal groups heavily targeted and labeled as sex offenders.
That said there's a clear distinction surrounding anything that looks realistic. If it could confuse a reasonable person that it could be a real person, that has a real impact in eroding our ability to seek justice for real crimes. That's an action that has a real world consequence that affects other people and is justified to (in limited scope) restrict our freedom of speech.
But a blanket ban on content simply because it's gross and horrible despite being completely fictional is not something we should be supporting, lest we immediately see people try to redefine what's gross and horrible to a broader scope.
The furor over pedophilia in general is not unintentional.
It is not a coincidence that they tried to equate gender identity with exposing children to inappropriate material, and then equating that with pedophilia. In some states even just saying that, as a woman you have a wife or vice versa is enough.
It's also not unintentional for people to be calling for extrajudicial (literally in this case) doxxing or straight up murder. I get it - being a pedophile is not good.
The fact of the matter is, it's bad because it other people (whether it's deepfakes or something else). If it doesn't hurt other people - the state loses its mandate. I mean we used to have laws against sodomy - what happens consensually in a bedroom. And the logic is exactly the same.
Frankly the state should only be regulating issues which clearly encroach on the rights of someone else.
The Constitution is what protects us from people implementing what they think should or shouldn't be allowed for their neighbors, and thank god for it.
Tell us you don't know the details of the case without saying them words I guess. The specific reason this wasn't possession of CSAM is that the children were entirely fictional (As in, not based on photos of real children, cause you didn't catch the use of fictional in the first comment). Do I think it's still something that should be prosecuted, yeah probably, but the law doesn't actually criminalize this, in the same way that writing about book about murder isn't murdering a person.
So explain Lolita, The Colour Purple, It (Stephen King), First hand accounts from Survivors of Childhood Sexual abuse, and the entire works of the Marquis de Sade being in public libraries all over the world?
The first three are fictional accounts (Analogous to AI generated CSAM, fictional but graphic accounts)
The First hand accounts are real life examples.
And the Marquis de Sade is STRONGLY suspected of writing from a first hand perspective of the abuser (Analogous to AI generated materials produced from real victims).
How do these fail to trip the CSAM audit you want?
The reality is that AI does scrape the images of real life children from the internet and AI companies have not built any security protocols in place to prevent the usage of real life children from being used in prompts that were used to generate AI child porn
That is my main concern with Ai generated child porn
A valid concern, but a flawed argument. I hope my examples show you that if fictional materials generated by humans which broach the topic of CSAM are protected by free speech, there is a very valid argument, that AI generated fiction, broaching the topic of CSAM likely earns the same Free Speech protections.
I don't want you to take from this that I don't agree with you. I'm just saying the crime here is the provision of true victims of CSAM to the AI learning algorithm. Not the use of CSAM materials to generate fiction. The fact is all of those Human authors based their characters on people they knew, people who were one time real, Fictionalized.
Human history is full of accounts of these kinds of abuse. Oscar Wilde was a prolific, still celebrated author, but you really don't want to read what he was like in his personal life. If his works are acceptable, I don't really see a valid differentiator to AI generated fiction.
No. If he actually thinks that using illegal images to make amalgamated copies is protected by the first amendment then he is too stupid to be a judge.
The 2002 ruling that "virtual" CSAM can't be prohibited by government would disagree with you. Just because you think something should work a certain way doesn't mean it actually does.
Would you like to make an argument for why, or just say it because you don't like the ruling? That 2002 case directly applies here. He is correct in his interpretation, and he's correct that the laws should be revisited.
Yeah this lol. The Judge is against it morally, but legally the existence of artificial CSAM isn't defined or bound as much as you would like.
The judges recommendation to close the loophole legally is where people should be focusing, not that the judge said "fake CSAM OK", he said "fake CSAM not blocked by law, so someone make the damn law".
"Against in morally" and "criminal" are two different things. Within criminal, there are different levels of criminality. The less-than-nuanced distinction is:
Real CASM is created by hurting children.
AI CASM is created without hurting real children.
Most reasonably people will be against both morally, but I see no way to equate the two. The former should, unqualified, result in long prison sentences, sex offender registries, and so on.
To me, the latter is more complex and nuanced:
Should a confused teenager who creates anything with AI as a one-off spend the next decade in prison? Where is the threshold?
Is this a felony or misdemeanor?
Is the better outcome prison? Treatment? Something else?
I don't like the prison-industrial complex in the US. Prison keeps people from contributing productively to society. It's a school for how to be a criminal. And it costs a ton of money. If I were dictator, it'd be a punishment of last resort. Real CASM qualifies since it prevents people from hurting real kids.
I don't have an answer here. Fundamentally, the judge is right that this is something new, doesn't fit within the existing statute, and is a discussion that needs to happen.
One can argument AI CASM is to real CASM as manslaughter is to murder. And if you don't have a statute punishing manslaughter, the murder one shouldn't be conveniently expanded to fit.
Coincidentally, when I took similar positions after 9/11, I was constantly labeled as "with the terrorists." People ignored on knee jerk, because people are dumb. Now you have your gitmos, Afghanistans, and universal surveillance.
If you know how AI works though, you can argue that he is in fact wrong. AI doesn’t actually generate content out of the blue. It is an algorithm trained on existing content whether it’s written, video, photos, etc. So, that means that any of the content generated will be based off real individuals. With that in mind, it should be illegal by its own ruling.
It doesn't need actual pictures in its training data to generate something like this. Simply having clothed pictures of kids and naked pictures of adults is enough to allow it to extrapolate into csam territory. Honestly that's the whole point of this sort of AI over earlier tech. Also that doesn't even include the fact that simply having a picture of a naked kid doesn't make it csam. Medical photos and family photos would be completely legal examples and then could be twisted by the AI into a horrific output despite nothing in its training data being illegal.
Now given how the training data was actually acquired I don't doubt that there actually was illegal content in it simply because these companies didn't actually care enough to be careful about what they were gathering. If we want to screw them for the wall for that I'm all for it.
I’m not even making any claims regarding the legality of the inputs. Whether the inputs are legal or not doesn’t change the fact that the output is CSAM and is based on images of real people - legal or not.
I think it's important from a rights perspective to be clear about what we're banning. Whatever we come up with here will be fully utilized to target vulnerable groups like LGBT.
If the goal is to ban realistic looking images because they confuse and interfere with actual child abuse that has a clear limit and clear impact that's definable and something that could be decided on as a reasonable limit of free speech.
Likewise I think it's already illegal to create explicit images in another real person's likeness, minor or adult. That's an attack on someone's reputation and character and something easily achievable without AI. Expanding or making those laws more universal is again totally justified.
Making any non-realistic, non-real person fictional image illegal just because it's gross and horrific is a really bad can of worms to open, whether its AI created or not. There's no limit to that other than what people find as gross and that's a wildly variable thing that will 100% be used to simply target people they don't like.
The problem is, prove that. Prove that xyz model was trained off of CSAM with the purpose of generating CSAM. Saying "all AI is trained off of ____ so it had to have CSAM as part of its creation" is not a legal argument as it makes a series of assumption from a single fact. Its like saying "the purpose of owning a gun is to kill things, so all of those people who own guns want to kill people". Likewise its criminally convicting a person because their car reported they went 130 mph, there are many places that is legal and many reasons for doing so, its on the state to build the case that they drove it 130mph in an illegal way.
I’m not even saying it should be illegal based on the legality of the material it was trained on. The output should be the determining factor. Since you used a gun argument I’ll use one too.
Having an unregistered short barrel rifle is illegal. Having a short rifle barrel on its own is not illegal and having an unfinished rifle body is not illegal. Putting the two pieces together is illegal. Even having the two pieces separate but on the shelf can be illegal due to constructive intent.
Another example, having a bunch of lawn fertilizer is totally legal. Making bombs using fertilizer is illegal.
By following that same train of thought, the prompt can also use perfectly legal inputs to create material that would otherwise be illegal.
•
u/[deleted] 8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment