this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
293 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

65819 readers
4924 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (25 children)

I think another major point to consider going forward is if it is problematic if people can generate all sorts of illegal stuff. If it is AI generated it is a victimless crime, so should it be illegal? I personally feel uncomfortable with the thought of several things being legal, but I can't logically argue for it being illegal without a victim.

I've been thinking about this recently too, and I have similar feelings.

I'm just gonna come out and say it without beating around the bush: what is the law's position on AI-generated child porn?

More importantly, what should it be?

It goes without saying that the training data absolutely should not contain CP, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody. But what if it wasn't?

If we're basing the law on pragmatism rather than emotional reaction, I guess it comes down to whether creating this material would embolden paedophiles and lead to more predatory behaviour (i.e. increasing demand), or whether it would satisfy their desires enough to cause a substantial drop in predatory behaviour (I.e. lowering demand).

And to know that, we'd need extensive and extremely controversial studies. Beyond that, even in the event allowing this stuff to be generated is an overall positive (and I don't know whether it would or won't), will many politicians actually call for this stuff to be allowed? Seems like the kind of thing that could ruin a political career. Nobody's touching that with a ten foot pole.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

what is the law’s position on AI-generated child porn?

Pretend underage porn is illegal in the EU and some other countries. I believe, in the US it is protected by the first amendment.

Mind that when people talk about child porn or CSAM that means anything underage, as far as politics is concerned. When two 17-year-olds exchange nude selfies, that is child porn. There were some publicized cases of teens in the US being convicted as pedophile sex offenders for sexting.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I believe, in the US it is protected by the first amendment.

CSAM, artificial or not, is illegal in the United States.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-arrested-producing-distributing-and-possessing-ai-generated-images-minors-engaged

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I see. I've looked up the details. Obscenity - whatever that means - is not protected by the first amendment. So where the material is obscene, it is still illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

load more comments (22 replies)