this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
265 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

65819 readers
4952 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
[–] TheRealKuni@midwest.social 5 points 1 week ago (18 children)

How can it be trained to produce something without human input.

It wasn’t trained to produce every specific image it produces. That would make it pointless. It “learns” concepts and then applies them.

No one trained AI on material of Donald Trump sucking on feet, but it can still generate it.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 week ago (17 children)

It was able to produce that because enough images of both feet and Donald Trump exist.

How would it know what young genitals look like?

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (9 children)

If you train a model on 1,000,000 images of dogs and 1,000,000 images of cats, your output isn't going to be a 50/50 split of purely dogs and purely cats, it's going to be (on average) somewhere between a cat and a dog. At no point did you have to feed in pictures of dog-cat hybrids to end up with that model.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes but you start with the basics of a cat and a dog. So you start with adult genitals and.......

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Non-pornographic pictures of children and/or human-made pornographic drawings of children.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"Okay" in what sense? If you mean morally, then I think that's pretty clear cut. If you mean legally, then that's just a technicality.

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

totally ethical thousands of photos of drawings of children in sexual contexts

Legality is just a technicality

Okay there bud.

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why would "thousands of photos of drawings of children in sexual contexts" be unethical?

[–] DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Because they're barely legal in certain places?

[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Plenty of moral things are illegal or barely legal in certain places. For example, homosexual adults having consensual sex with each other in their own home. I assume you don't think that's unethical or immoral?

I'm not saying legality is ethical.

I'm saying there's no practical way to assemble that much material without exploration at some level.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)