The legal reasoning runs through two Supreme Court decisions, both of which predate generative AI by decades. The first is Stanley v. Georgia in 1969, which held that a person has a constitutional right to possess obscene material in the privacy of their own home, even when the state can ban selling or distributing it. The second is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in 2002, which held that virtual child sexual abuse material, meaning depictions that do not involve any real child, is not child pornography under the law and cannot be banned on the same basis. Actual child sexual abuse material remains illegal to possess anywhere under Osborne v. Ohio.
What the appeal covered is the part getting lost as this circulates. The Seventh Circuit ruled only on the home possession charge. The charges against Anderegg for producing and distributing the material are still pending. So is the separate charge for allegedly sending similar AI-generated sexual images to a 15-year-old boy over Instagram.
The court did not rule that making this material is legal, did not rule that sharing it is legal, and did not dismiss the case against him.
They have decided just the possession part is legal under current case law/precedent, however they have not yet decided on the legal merits of the creation or distribution that material.
The scope is narrower than the headline suggests. Riana Pfefferkorn, a policy fellow at Stanford, pointed out that the ruling does not protect downloading images from a third-party website, and does not protect carrying a phone or laptop containing the images outside the house. That distinction has already been tested. In a January 2026 case, U.S. v. Yener, a court followed the Anderegg reasoning but reached a different result because the defendant’s phone containing the material was found on him at a diner and in a storage unit rather than at his residence.
i cant expect anything less. Conservatives love to use AI TO make fetishized depiction pictures about women, especially POC, and this includes minors too.
I actually don't support banning AI-generated child porn.
Why? Because I am a pedophile. I am a groomer. I AM pornography.
I have no sexual interest in children whatsoever. But it does not matter, I am a pedophile. In real life, I work as an educator. I've worked with children my entire career, and I would sooner jump off a bridge before hurting one. But it does not matter, I am a groomer. I have never in my life taken my clothes off in front of a camera, but I am not just pornographic, I am pornography.
I don't consume pornography. I do not take images with my clothes off. But I am pornography. My body is pornographic. My face is pornographic. My voice is pornographic. My very spirit and soul are pornography.
I am a pedophile. I am a groomer. I am pornography. At least according to the people who run the US Federal government.
In reality, I am none of these things. But it does not matter. I am trans, so I am these things simply by default. According to a decent portion of the population my very existence is inappropriate to discuss around children.
The US has very strong first amendment protections. The only reason queer media is legal in most of the US is because historically the Supreme Court has ruled that broad first amendment protections can only be violated under certain very specific and tightly-defined circumstances. Texas would love to declare any queer website or magazine to be illegal pornography, but existing jurisprudence prevents this.
Child pornography, like all pornography, by default would be protected by the first amendment. Yes, it's abominable and disgusting, but a substantial amount of people consider my existence to be abominable and disgusting. Media discussing or featuring trans people and LGBT folks in general can only exist because something being abominable and disgusting is not enough legal justification to override the first amendment. You cannot ban speech simply because you find it immoral or disgusting.
The Supreme Court has allowed banning child porn, but only under an extremely limited exception to the first amendment. And that exception is that the images involved are generated from real harm done to real children. Using this standard has been a great boon to the US. We've been able to ban child porn while also keeping the government's hands tied against banning the media of unpopular minority groups.
Under current jurisprudence, laws declaring media involving trans people to be illegal pornography are unconstitutional. The government can't point to real harm done to real children as a result of trans people simply being in a piece of media, so they can't ban it.
But the moment you relax that standard, the flood gates open. If you can ban porn that never actually resulted in any harm to a real human child, at that point you're banning porn simply because you find it gross and immoral. And if you can do that, you can ban the media of all sorts of communities people find immoral.
I loathe the idea of someone operating a legal child porn generator. But I also cannot ignore the fact that according to the very people running the US Federal government, any image or video of me is pornographic by default. I'm a trans person that's medically transitioned. I've permanently altered my body in substantial ways. According to Project 2025, any media depicting a person presenting in a way contrary to their sex assigned at birth is pornographic. And it is literally not possible for me to be in an image without appearing in a way very different from my birth sex. To conservatives, my very existence is pornographic.
So forgive me for being extremely skeptical of any effort to relax the very legal standards that have protected millions of people from persecution. Remember, every effort to restrict rights is always sold as an effort to "protect the children." But just like how now the word "terrorist" has completely lost all meaning, once you grant anything called "child pornography" broad first amendment exemptions, suddenly everything will start to be classified as child porn. Yes, abandoning our current standard of real demonstrable harm would allow us to put some more actual pedophiles in jail. But untying the government's hands and giving it broad new authority to police speech will harm millions of innocent people.
This is a very difficult topic to engage with rationally. But put the emotions aside and try.
We generally don't ban things just because they're gross. We ban child porn because children were hurt in the making of it. Without real kids involved, what's the justification to ban it, other than we just find it horrible? Again, we generally do not ban porn simply because it makes people uncomfortable. There's a lot of porn of adults I would never want to see. Hell, I don't even like porn of any kind. I'm more a romance novel type myself.
But really, as gross as it is, from a purely legal perspective, if there are no kids involved in the creation of something, how is banning simulated child porn any different than homophobes wanting to ban porn because they think gay people are gross? Again, we don't ban porn simply because we find it gross.
I could see an argument that maybe having virtual child porn out there could make pedophiles more likely to offend. But that seems like a very shaky assumption. The opposite case could just as easily be true. Virtual child porn could very well lower the rates of assault against minors. By banning it, we could very well be harming real children in the name of protecting virtual ones.
Did I say it was? Did the comment I was replying to say anything about America? Is this an America specific Lemmy instance? Is the op's post even in English?
I was replying with a comment about a legal case relevant to the conversation. Sorry if your world view is limited to America, but not all of us have pedos for president. Not everything revolves around America, and I'm sick of Americans thinking it's all about them. Get over yourself. The world is a lot bigger than you seem to think, and the bullshit billionaires pull has ramifications globally.
That's assuming it was trained on images of child pornography. There are plenty of ways someone could train such an engine without using any pornographic images of actual children. And if someone was going to go to the trouble of deliberately creating a child porn generator with the specific intention of using it openly and legally? There would be no point in doing so if you had to use illegal images to do it.
No, realistically they wouldn't. If the entire point is to have some site that can legally and openly generate legal child porn, they would go to the trouble of developing a model without using real child porn images. There would be no point otherwise.
that's not the whole point, the whole point is to get as much data as possible to train their LLMs, and they've shown blatant disregard for laws and morality up to this point, there's no reason to give them the benefit of doubt.
Couple things. Firstly just yesterday there was a headline I saw on Lemmy that said Elon Musk's Grok was found to have some absurdly high number of child porn images it was trained from. So, yes that absolutely is what would happen, because it just did happen.
Secondly, The concept of child porn is what I always thought was banned. The core concept of it at all. That's what I thought was illegal. So that would cover things like hand drawn fiction. Things like AI content. Things like audio files of simulated or actual child sex. Anything at all promoting the concept of child sexual abuse. Of any kind.
I will put it to you like this. I have a fetish that's rather newish when you consider how long it's been around compared to other fetishes. It's absolutely nothing to do with children, or anything illegal. The important thing about my fetish is that it's rather new. And back in the year 2000 this fetish got a website which was kind of the unofficial official home of our fetish. In those days the message board had roughly 10,000 registered members. The last time I checked in the year 2008 it had something like 8 million members. This message board was essentially just a centralized place to share content of our fetish. Stories, fictional or real. Images. The internet was too early to share video, but it kind of did anyways. You just had to wait a while, since it was 56k days. And because of all this exposure and new content, the fetish spread. Now on Fetlife, it's not all that hard to find people with this fetish. We're kind of everywhere. It's a harmless fetish that most people laugh at, but it's still gaining traction.
Now lets apply that same concept to child porn. By allowing the creation and distribution of fictional child porn you grow the genre. My fetish started out with 10k members, and grew to millions. We outgrew the original centralized message board because it was too popular that it just spread everywhere else, and suddenly we didn't need a centralized sharing ground because now it was hosted on every porn site. Today I can't picture a major general purpose porn site without my fetish. Now imagine a world where that were also true of child porn. Even fictional. Even drawn or AI. It spreads. Then as they become more normalized, they'll feel more comfortable coming out without being shamed for it. I want every possible avenue of shaming them. I want to shame them out of existence. Not normalize it.
and given what we know about how all the mainstream LLMs blatantly disregarded all IP laws and privacy laws to get as much training material as possible, there's no reason to give them the benefit of doubt.
Question, has watching legal porn, ever made you less likely to want sex?
What I'm trying to get at here.. is if bulk material can be generated to arouse those people legally.. I personally don't see how that would translate into less offending
After all, in the last 30 years, we've had an absolute explosion in the availability of freely available adult pornography. If more porn access meant more rape and sexual assault, the rates of these should have skyrocketed over the last 30 years. Instead they've gone down. I wouldn't automatically conclude a causal relationship there. But if availability of porn causes rapes and assaults, then we would know that by now.
I'm blocked from seeing your link for some reason. I wasn't referencing sexual assault of adults for which I gather there's a significant percentage that would consent.. but that's a fair statement that I'm sure there are plenty of adults who have potentially increased their pornography viewing and not had a consenting adult they then went on to SA
That's not necessarily true. You could have all sorts of training models that didn't rely on any real children at all. You're just assuming it was trained on actual child porn. Other ways it could be trained:
Trained on images of adults that look younger than 18. You could commission a bunch of pornography by people with whatever medical condition this guy has and use that as your training data.
Trained on pornographic images of adults and regular images of kids. (This one is questionable legally, even though again, no kids were harmed in the making of it.)
Trained on entirely on images of adults, reviewers are tasked with trying to identify the age of the person in the image generated, and using that as training data.
If someone was deliberately trying to create a legal child porn engine (what a horrible phrase to type), they would be sure to do it without using any actual child porn as the training data. There would be little point otherwise.
In this thread we're not talking about grok. We're talking about whether simulated child porn itself is automatically illegal. And my point is that no, it need not be. I would agree that anything made using actual child porn images should be illegal. But if no actual children are involved at any point in the process? Changing the interpretation of the Constitution to allow making such a thing illegal would do more harm than you can possibly imagine.
material that, in a way likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, describes or depicts a person, or a representation of a person, who is (or apparently is) a child under 16 years:
in a sexual context (e.g. engaging in a sexual activity)
because the AI is trained on real CSAM, so that's the part they should be prosecuting -- the downloading and storage of real CSAM. It's not like a human who never actually harmed a child using their imagination and creativity to draw something.
Didn't fucking Japan make illegal to have drawings of Csam? Which is way less then what fuck is this ruling? Someone needs to check that judges hard drives.
Just a reminder to people that AI generated images need other non-AI images to be trained on. If someone is making AI CSAM, it's likely that they are using real CSAM to create it.
You could ask the AI for "a unicorn on a unicycle" and it doesn't need to have been trained on images of unicorns on unicycles in order to produce that. As long as it knows what a unicorn looks like and what a unicycle looks like, it can combine the two.
Likewise, it's possible that it may be able to generate AI child porn without any actual child porn in its training dataset, but if it knows what children look like and what nudity looks like, then it could figure out what nude children look like.
Now, none of this is to defend these AI companies. Fuck them for a thousand different reasons -- generating child porn images is just one of many reasons they're terrible. They should (at least) put better guardrails in place to prevent their AI bots from generating child porn images.
But I do think it's important to be accurate and not go into it with misconceptions. And just because an image generator is capable of generating something doesn't mean it was trained on that thing.
Likewise, it's possible that it may be able to generate AI child porn without any actual child porn in its training dataset, but if it knows what children look like and what nudity looks like, then it could figure out what nude children look like.
This is true and it's what happened to OpenAI, there's a section in Karen Hao's Empire of AI about it. Remember, these companies (under) paid Kenyan workers and gave them PTSD to make sure CSAM and other undesirable content wasn't in their training set.
46 Comments
Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca · 42 pts · 11h
Disgusting.
https://balleralert.com/appeals-court-ai-generated-child-abuse-images-first-amendment-ruling/
They have decided just the possession part is legal under current case law/precedent, however they have not yet decided on the legal merits of the creation or distribution that material.
TachyonTele_Esq@piefed.social · 39 pts · 12h
Disgusting
eremophila@lemmy.zip · 19 pts · 12h
sounds like just another day in the usa
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 6 pts · 11h
TP USA always seemed like such an ironic acronym that fit this last disturbing decade
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 16 pts · 9h
i cant expect anything less. Conservatives love to use AI TO make fetishized depiction pictures about women, especially POC, and this includes minors too.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 13 pts · 8h
I actually don't support banning AI-generated child porn.
Why? Because I am a pedophile. I am a groomer. I AM pornography.
I have no sexual interest in children whatsoever. But it does not matter, I am a pedophile. In real life, I work as an educator. I've worked with children my entire career, and I would sooner jump off a bridge before hurting one. But it does not matter, I am a groomer. I have never in my life taken my clothes off in front of a camera, but I am not just pornographic, I am pornography.
I don't consume pornography. I do not take images with my clothes off. But I am pornography. My body is pornographic. My face is pornographic. My voice is pornographic. My very spirit and soul are pornography.
I am a pedophile. I am a groomer. I am pornography. At least according to the people who run the US Federal government.
In reality, I am none of these things. But it does not matter. I am trans, so I am these things simply by default. According to a decent portion of the population my very existence is inappropriate to discuss around children.
The US has very strong first amendment protections. The only reason queer media is legal in most of the US is because historically the Supreme Court has ruled that broad first amendment protections can only be violated under certain very specific and tightly-defined circumstances. Texas would love to declare any queer website or magazine to be illegal pornography, but existing jurisprudence prevents this.
Child pornography, like all pornography, by default would be protected by the first amendment. Yes, it's abominable and disgusting, but a substantial amount of people consider my existence to be abominable and disgusting. Media discussing or featuring trans people and LGBT folks in general can only exist because something being abominable and disgusting is not enough legal justification to override the first amendment. You cannot ban speech simply because you find it immoral or disgusting.
The Supreme Court has allowed banning child porn, but only under an extremely limited exception to the first amendment. And that exception is that the images involved are generated from real harm done to real children. Using this standard has been a great boon to the US. We've been able to ban child porn while also keeping the government's hands tied against banning the media of unpopular minority groups.
Under current jurisprudence, laws declaring media involving trans people to be illegal pornography are unconstitutional. The government can't point to real harm done to real children as a result of trans people simply being in a piece of media, so they can't ban it.
But the moment you relax that standard, the flood gates open. If you can ban porn that never actually resulted in any harm to a real human child, at that point you're banning porn simply because you find it gross and immoral. And if you can do that, you can ban the media of all sorts of communities people find immoral.
I loathe the idea of someone operating a legal child porn generator. But I also cannot ignore the fact that according to the very people running the US Federal government, any image or video of me is pornographic by default. I'm a trans person that's medically transitioned. I've permanently altered my body in substantial ways. According to Project 2025, any media depicting a person presenting in a way contrary to their sex assigned at birth is pornographic. And it is literally not possible for me to be in an image without appearing in a way very different from my birth sex. To conservatives, my very existence is pornographic.
So forgive me for being extremely skeptical of any effort to relax the very legal standards that have protected millions of people from persecution. Remember, every effort to restrict rights is always sold as an effort to "protect the children." But just like how now the word "terrorist" has completely lost all meaning, once you grant anything called "child pornography" broad first amendment exemptions, suddenly everything will start to be classified as child porn. Yes, abandoning our current standard of real demonstrable harm would allow us to put some more actual pedophiles in jail. But untying the government's hands and giving it broad new authority to police speech will harm millions of innocent people.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 14 pts · 11h
I mean, it's the same principle as drawn child porn; which is legal. Why did y'all expect anything else?
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 10h
I expected that drawn child porn was illegal. I wasn't aware it was legal.
Now there are TWO things I am angry about.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 23 pts · 10h
This is a very difficult topic to engage with rationally. But put the emotions aside and try.
We generally don't ban things just because they're gross. We ban child porn because children were hurt in the making of it. Without real kids involved, what's the justification to ban it, other than we just find it horrible? Again, we generally do not ban porn simply because it makes people uncomfortable. There's a lot of porn of adults I would never want to see. Hell, I don't even like porn of any kind. I'm more a romance novel type myself.
But really, as gross as it is, from a purely legal perspective, if there are no kids involved in the creation of something, how is banning simulated child porn any different than homophobes wanting to ban porn because they think gay people are gross? Again, we don't ban porn simply because we find it gross.
I could see an argument that maybe having virtual child porn out there could make pedophiles more likely to offend. But that seems like a very shaky assumption. The opposite case could just as easily be true. Virtual child porn could very well lower the rates of assault against minors. By banning it, we could very well be harming real children in the name of protecting virtual ones.
Obituarykidney@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 10h
An Australian guy was arrested for possession of CP in 2008 for Simpsons rule34.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 2 pts · 9h
But was he convicted for it?
Obituarykidney@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 7h
Yes
crispbacon99@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 5h
Is Australia part of the US now or something?
Obituarykidney@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 2h
Did I say it was? Did the comment I was replying to say anything about America? Is this an America specific Lemmy instance? Is the op's post even in English?
I was replying with a comment about a legal case relevant to the conversation. Sorry if your world view is limited to America, but not all of us have pedos for president. Not everything revolves around America, and I'm sick of Americans thinking it's all about them. Get over yourself. The world is a lot bigger than you seem to think, and the bullshit billionaires pull has ramifications globally.
homosapien@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 4h
it involves children as the model, is, infact trained on REAL photos of children
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 10h
The AI isn't generating child sex abuse material from thin air. It's generating it from all of the child sex abuse material it was trained on.
Do you not see the problem?
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 8 pts · 10h
That's assuming it was trained on images of child pornography. There are plenty of ways someone could train such an engine without using any pornographic images of actual children. And if someone was going to go to the trouble of deliberately creating a child porn generator with the specific intention of using it openly and legally? There would be no point in doing so if you had to use illegal images to do it.
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 10h
Your fanfiction is hypothetically possible.
Realistically, they'll just train it on child sex abuse material.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 9h
No, realistically they wouldn't. If the entire point is to have some site that can legally and openly generate legal child porn, they would go to the trouble of developing a model without using real child porn images. There would be no point otherwise.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 23m
that's not the whole point, the whole point is to get as much data as possible to train their LLMs, and they've shown blatant disregard for laws and morality up to this point, there's no reason to give them the benefit of doubt.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 8h
Couple things. Firstly just yesterday there was a headline I saw on Lemmy that said Elon Musk's Grok was found to have some absurdly high number of child porn images it was trained from. So, yes that absolutely is what would happen, because it just did happen.
Secondly, The concept of child porn is what I always thought was banned. The core concept of it at all. That's what I thought was illegal. So that would cover things like hand drawn fiction. Things like AI content. Things like audio files of simulated or actual child sex. Anything at all promoting the concept of child sexual abuse. Of any kind.
I will put it to you like this. I have a fetish that's rather newish when you consider how long it's been around compared to other fetishes. It's absolutely nothing to do with children, or anything illegal. The important thing about my fetish is that it's rather new. And back in the year 2000 this fetish got a website which was kind of the unofficial official home of our fetish. In those days the message board had roughly 10,000 registered members. The last time I checked in the year 2008 it had something like 8 million members. This message board was essentially just a centralized place to share content of our fetish. Stories, fictional or real. Images. The internet was too early to share video, but it kind of did anyways. You just had to wait a while, since it was 56k days. And because of all this exposure and new content, the fetish spread. Now on Fetlife, it's not all that hard to find people with this fetish. We're kind of everywhere. It's a harmless fetish that most people laugh at, but it's still gaining traction.
Now lets apply that same concept to child porn. By allowing the creation and distribution of fictional child porn you grow the genre. My fetish started out with 10k members, and grew to millions. We outgrew the original centralized message board because it was too popular that it just spread everywhere else, and suddenly we didn't need a centralized sharing ground because now it was hosted on every porn site. Today I can't picture a major general purpose porn site without my fetish. Now imagine a world where that were also true of child porn. Even fictional. Even drawn or AI. It spreads. Then as they become more normalized, they'll feel more comfortable coming out without being shamed for it. I want every possible avenue of shaming them. I want to shame them out of existence. Not normalize it.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 24m
Grok is accused of being trained on real CSAM
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/elon-musks-xai-used-child-porn-to-train-grok-models-lawsuit-says/
and given what we know about how all the mainstream LLMs blatantly disregarded all IP laws and privacy laws to get as much training material as possible, there's no reason to give them the benefit of doubt.
YeahToast@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 10h
Question, has watching legal porn, ever made you less likely to want sex? What I'm trying to get at here.. is if bulk material can be generated to arouse those people legally.. I personally don't see how that would translate into less offending
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 15 pts · 10h
The evidence we have points to the opposite conclusion.
After all, in the last 30 years, we've had an absolute explosion in the availability of freely available adult pornography. If more porn access meant more rape and sexual assault, the rates of these should have skyrocketed over the last 30 years. Instead they've gone down. I wouldn't automatically conclude a causal relationship there. But if availability of porn causes rapes and assaults, then we would know that by now.
YeahToast@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 4h
I'm blocked from seeing your link for some reason. I wasn't referencing sexual assault of adults for which I gather there's a significant percentage that would consent.. but that's a fair statement that I'm sure there are plenty of adults who have potentially increased their pornography viewing and not had a consenting adult they then went on to SA
a1tsca13@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 10h
AI models only know what they are trained on. Inherently, that means real children are harmed in the production of AI-generated CSAM.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 10h
That's not necessarily true. You could have all sorts of training models that didn't rely on any real children at all. You're just assuming it was trained on actual child porn. Other ways it could be trained:
Trained on images of adults that look younger than 18. You could commission a bunch of pornography by people with whatever medical condition this guy has and use that as your training data.
Trained on pornographic images of adults and regular images of kids. (This one is questionable legally, even though again, no kids were harmed in the making of it.)
Trained on entirely on images of adults, reviewers are tasked with trying to identify the age of the person in the image generated, and using that as training data.
If someone was deliberately trying to create a legal child porn engine (what a horrible phrase to type), they would be sure to do it without using any actual child porn as the training data. There would be little point otherwise.
uen3@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 9h
Would they, really...? That's giving the sort of guys actually responsible for doing this stuff an un-earned benefit of the doubt.
https://cyberscoop.com/xai-grok-csam-class-action-lawsuit/
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 9h
In this thread we're not talking about grok. We're talking about whether simulated child porn itself is automatically illegal. And my point is that no, it need not be. I would agree that anything made using actual child porn images should be illegal. But if no actual children are involved at any point in the process? Changing the interpretation of the Constitution to allow making such a thing illegal would do more harm than you can possibly imagine.
Prime@lemmy.sdf.org · 3 pts · 4h
This is completely wrong. I have no idea how you can say this when it is plainly obvious that ai can create things it never saw.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 5 pts · 10h
How do you verify the age of a fictional character?
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 5h
In Australia:
Fredselfish@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 8m
In Japan they just made it illegal.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 28m
because the AI is trained on real CSAM, so that's the part they should be prosecuting -- the downloading and storage of real CSAM. It's not like a human who never actually harmed a child using their imagination and creativity to draw something.
Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de · 14 pts · 3h
Remember that legal ai csam means that the government needs to prove that real csam is real csam, to convict a pedophile.
Fredselfish@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 12m
Didn't fucking Japan make illegal to have drawings of Csam? Which is way less then what fuck is this ruling? Someone needs to check that judges hard drives.
kadu@scribe.disroot.org · 1 pts · 2m
Not really, you'd see the doujinshi community having a breakdown.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 3h
where the fuck do they think llms train it on?
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus · 7 pts · 11h
I gotta say, the demand from the judge for the supreme court to overrule it does not make me hopeful.
PineRune@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 11h
Just a reminder to people that AI generated images need other non-AI images to be trained on. If someone is making AI CSAM, it's likely that they are using real CSAM to create it.
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 12 pts · 10h
Eh, maybe, but maybe not.
You could ask the AI for "a unicorn on a unicycle" and it doesn't need to have been trained on images of unicorns on unicycles in order to produce that. As long as it knows what a unicorn looks like and what a unicycle looks like, it can combine the two.
Likewise, it's possible that it may be able to generate AI child porn without any actual child porn in its training dataset, but if it knows what children look like and what nudity looks like, then it could figure out what nude children look like.
Now, none of this is to defend these AI companies. Fuck them for a thousand different reasons -- generating child porn images is just one of many reasons they're terrible. They should (at least) put better guardrails in place to prevent their AI bots from generating child porn images.
But I do think it's important to be accurate and not go into it with misconceptions. And just because an image generator is capable of generating something doesn't mean it was trained on that thing.
flamingos@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 9h
This is true and it's what happened to OpenAI, there's a section in Karen Hao's Empire of AI about it. Remember, these companies (under) paid Kenyan workers and gave them PTSD to make sure CSAM and other undesirable content wasn't in their training set.
RustyNova@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5h