He allegedly used Stable Diffusion, a text-to-image generative AI model, to create “thousands of realistic images of prepubescent minors,” prosecutors said.
  • RGB3x3@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    1 year ago

    The problem with AI CSAM generation is that the AI has to be trained on something first. It has to somehow know what a naked minor looks like. And to do that, well… You need to feed it CSAM.

    So is it right to be using images of real children to train these AI? You’d be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks that’s okay.

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      You make the assumption that the person generating the images also trained the AI model. You also make assumptions about how the AI was trained without knowing anything about the model.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        Are there any guarantees that harmful images weren’t used in these AI models? Based on how image generation works now, it’s very likely that harmful images were used to train the data.

        And if a person is using a model based on harmful training data, they should be held responsible.

        However, the AI owner/trainer has even more responsibility in perpetuating harm to children and should be prosecuted appropriately.

        • Eezyville@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          14·
          1 year ago

          And if a person is using a model based on harmful training data, they should be held responsible.

          I will have to disagree with you for several reasons.

          • You are still making assumptions about a system you know absolutely nothing about.
          • By your logic anything born from something that caused suffering from others (this example is AI trained on CSAM) the users of that product should be held responsible for the crime committed to create that product.
            • Does that apply to every product/result created from human suffering or just the things you don’t like?
            • Will you apply that logic to the prosperity of Western Nations built on the suffering of indigenous and enslaved people? Should everyone who benefit from western prosperity be held responsible for the crimes committed against those people?
            • What about medicine? Two examples are The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the cancer cells of Henrietta Lacks. Medicine benefited greatly from these two examples but crimes were committed against the people involved. Should every patient from a cancer program that benefited from Ms. Lacks’ cancer cells also be subject to pay compensation to her family? The doctors that used her cells without permission didn’t.
            • Should we also talk about the advances in medicine found by Nazis who experimented on Jews and others during WW2? We used that data in our manned space program paving the way to all the benefits we get from space technology.
            • Eezyville@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              3·
              1 year ago

              My values are none of your business. Try attacking my arguments instead of looking for something about me to attack.

              • aceshigh@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                At the root of it beliefs aren’t based on logic they’re based on your value system. So why dance around the actual topic?

          • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            The difference between the things you’re listing and SAM is that those other things have actual utility outside of getting off. Were our phones made with human suffering? Probably but phones have many more uses than making someone cum. Are all those things wrong? Yea, but at least good came out of it outside of just giving people sexual gratification directly from the harm of others.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Are there any guarantees that harmful images weren’t used in these AI models?

          Lol, highly doubt it. These AI assholes pretend that all the training data randomly fell into the model (off the back of a truck) and that they cannot possibly be held responsible for that or know anything about it because they were too busy innovating.

          There’s no guarantee that most regular porn sites don’t contain csam or other exploitative imagery and video (sex trafficking victims). There’s absolutely zero chance that there’s any kind of guarantee.

    • deathbird@mander.xyzEnglish
      17·
      1 year ago

      the AI has to be trained on something first. It has to somehow know what a naked minor looks like. And to do that, well… You need to feed it CSAM.

      First of all, not every image of a naked child is CSAM. This is actually been kind of a problem with automated CSAM detection systems triggering false positives on non-sexual images, and getting innocent people into trouble.

      But also, AI systems can blend multiple elements together. They don’t need CSAM training material to create CSAM, just the individual elements crafted into a prompt sufficient to create the image while avoiding any safeguards.

      • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        You ignored the second part of their post. Even if it didn’t use any csam is it right to use pictures of real children to generate csam? I really don’t think it is.

        • deathbird@mander.xyzEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          There are probably safeguards in place to prevent the creation of CSAM, just like there are for other illegal and offensive things, but determined people work around them.

      • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        The images were created using photos of real children even if said photos weren’t CSAM (which can’t be guaranteed they weren’t). So the victims were are the children used to generate CSAM

        • dev_null@lemmy.mlEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Sure, but isn’t the the perpetrator the company that trained the model without their permission? If a doctor saves someone’s life using knowledge based on nazi medical experiments, then surely the doctor isn’t responsible for the crimes?

          • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            So is the car manufacturer responsible if someone drives their car into the sidewalk to kill some people?

            Your analogy doesn’t match the premise. (Again assuming there is no csam in the training data which is unlikely) the training data is not the problem it is how the data is used. Using those same picture to generate photos of medieval kids eating ice cream with their family is fine. Using it to make CSAM is not.

            It would be more like the doctor using the nazi experiments to do some other fucked up experiments.

            (Also you posted your response like 5 times)

            • dev_null@lemmy.mlEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Sorry, my app glitched out and posted my comment multiple times, and got me banned for spamming… Now that I got unbanned I can reply.

              So is the car manufacturer responsible if someone drives their car into the sidewalk to kill some people?

              In this scenario no, because the crime was in how someone used the car, not in the creation of the car. The guy in this story did commit a crime, but for other reasons. I’m just saying that if you are claiming that children in the training data are victims of some crime, then that crime was committed when training the model. They obviously didn’t agree for their photos to be used that way, and most likely didn’t agree for their photos to be used for AI training at all. So by the time this guy came around, they were already victims, and would still be victims if he didn’t.

              • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                I would argue that the person using the model for that purpose is further victimizing the children. Kinda like how with revenge porn the worst perpetrator is the person who uploaded the content, but every person viewing it from there is furthering the victimization. It is mentally damaging for the victim of revenge porn to know that their intimate videos are being seen/sought out.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          Let’s do a thought experiment, and I’d look to to tell me at what point a victim was introduced:

          1. I legally acquire pictures of a child, fully clothed and everything
          2. I draw a picture based on those legal pictures, but the subject is nude or doing sexually explicit things
          3. I keep the picture for my own personal use and don’t distribute it

          Or with AI:

          1. I legally acquire pictures of children, fully clothed and everything
          2. I legally acquire pictures of nude adults, some doing sexually explicit things
          3. I train an AI on a mix of 1&2
          4. I generate images of nude children, some of them doing sexually explicit things
          5. I keep the pictures for my own personal use and don’t distribute any of them
          6. I distribute my model, using the right to distribute from the legal acquisition of those images

          At what point did my actions victimize someone?

          If I distributed those images and those images resemble a real person, then that real person is potentially a victim.

          I will say someone who does this creepy and I don’t want them anywhere near children (especially mine, and yes, I have kids), but I don’t think it should be illegal, provided the source material is legal. But as soon as I distribute it, there absolutely could be a victim. Being creepy shouldn’t be a crime.

          • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            I think it should be illegal to make porn of a person without their permission regardless of if it was shared or not. Imagine the person it is based off of finds out someone is doing that. That causes mental strain on the person. Just like how revenge porn doesn’t actively harm a person but causes mental strafe (both the initial upload and continued use of it). For scenario 1 it would be at step 2 when the porn is made of the person. For scenario 2 it would be a mix between step 3 and 4.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Thanks for sharing! I’m going to disagree with pretty much everything, so please stop reading here if you’re not interested.

              Imagine the person it is based off of finds out someone is doing that. That causes mental strain on the person…

              Sure, and there are plenty of things that can cause mental strain, but that doesn’t make those things illegal. For example:

              • public display of affection - could cause mental stain people who recently broke up or haven’t found love
              • drug use - recovering addicts could experience mental strain
              • finding out someone is masturbating to a picture of you

              And so on. Those things aren’t illegal, but someone could experience mental strain from them. Experiencing that doesn’t make you a victim, it just means you experience it.

              revenge porn doesn’t actively harm a person but causes mental strafe

              Revenge porn damages someone’s reputation, at the very least, which is a large part of why it’s illegal.

              Someone keeping those images for private use doesn’t cause harm, therefore it shouldn’t be illegal.

              Someone doing something creepy for their own use should never be illegal.

              • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                Thanks for sharing! I’m going to disagree with pretty much everything, so please stop reading here if you’re not interested.

                I’m not one to stop because of disagreement. You’re in good faith and that’s all that matters imo

                Revenge porn damages someone’s reputation, at the very least, which is a large part of why it’s illegal.

                Someone keeping those images for private use doesn’t cause harm, therefore it shouldn’t be illegal.

                I believe consent is a larger factor. The person who made it consented to have their photos/videos seen by that person but did not consent to them sharing it.

                That’s why it’s not illegal to call someone a slut (even though that also damages reputation)

                Someone doing something creepy for their own use should never be illegal.

                What if the recording was made without the person’s consent. Say someone records their one night stand without the other person’s knowledge but they don’t share it with anyone. Should that be illegal?

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Consent is certainly important, but they don’t need your consent if the image was obtained legally and thus subject to fair use, or if you gave them permission in the past.

                  That’s why it’s not illegal to call someone a slut (even though that also damages reputation)

                  It can be, if that constitutes defamation or libel. A passing statement wouldn’t, but a post on a popular website absolutely could. It all comes down to the damages that (false) statement caused.

                  What if the recording was made without the person’s consent. Say someone records their one night stand without the other person’s knowledge but they don’t share it with anyone. Should that be illegal?

                  That depends on whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it’s in public, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy.

                  In general, I’d say intimacy likely occurs somewhere with a reasonable expectation of privacy, at which point it would come down to consent (whether implied or explicit).

                  • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    1 year ago

                    It can be, if that constitutes defamation or libel. A passing statement wouldn’t, but a post on a popular website absolutely could. It all comes down to the damages that (false) statement caused.

                    If the person is a slut it wouldn’t be libel but it would still damage reputation. The person being a slut is true but calling them one still damages their reputation. If you release a home made video of a pornstar it would still be illegal even though it’s not something that would damage their reputation.

                    The reason for the illegality is the lack of consent not the reputation damage.

                    That depends on whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it’s in public, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy.

                    Even in a 1 party consent state recording someone while you are having intercourse with them is illegal without their consent, because we make exceptions for especially sensitive subjects such as sex.

                    To go along with that I also believe that people who uploaded photos of themselves/their children did not consent to having their photos used to make sexual content. If they did it would be another matter to me entirely.

                    Edit: I also would like to say (and I really am sorry for bringing them into this) but from what you said you think it would be okay (not socially acceptable but okay/fine) for someone to take pictures of your kids while they’re at the park and use that to make porn. Really think about that. Is that something you think should be allowed? Imagine someone taking pictures of them at walmart and you ask what they’re doing and they straight up tell you “I like how they look I’m going to add them to my training data to make porn, don’t worry though I’m not sharing it with anyone” and you could do jack shit about it without facing legal consequences yourself. You think that is okay?

    • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      It has to somehow know what a naked minor looks like.

      Not necessarily

      You need to feed it CSAM

      You don’t. You just need lists of other things, properly tagged. If you feed an AI a bunch of clothed adults and a bunch of naked adults, it will, in theory, “understand” the difference between being clothed and naked and create any of its clothed adults, naked.

      With that initial set above, you feed it a bunch of clothed children. When you ask for a naked child, it will either produce a child head with naked adult body, or a “weird” naked child. It “understands” that adult and child are different things, that clothed and naked are different things, and tries to infer what “naked child” looks like from what it “knows”.

      So is it right to be using images of real children to train these AI?

      This is the real question and one I don’t know the answer to, because it will boil down to consent to being part of a training model, whether your own as an adult, or a child’s parent, much like how it works for stock photos and videos.

      “I consent to having my likeness used for AI training models, except for any use that involves NSFW content” - Fair enough. Good luck enforcing that.