• FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    Better a dozen innocent men go to prison than one guilty man go free?

    • Dave@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      In this case if they know it’s illegal, then they knowingly broke the law? Things are still illegal even if you don’t agree with it.

      Most (many?) Western countries also ban cartoon underage content, what’s the justification for that?

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        You suggested a situation where “many people would get off charges of real CSAM because the prosecuter can’t prove that it wasn’t AI generated.” That implies that in that situation AI-generated CSAM is legal. If it’s not legal then what does it matter if it’s AI-generated or not?

        • Dave@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          That’s not quite what I was getting at over the course of the comment thread.

          It one scenario, AI material is legal. Those with real CSAM use the defense that it’s actually AI and you can’t prove otherwise. In this scenario, no innocent men are going to prison, and most guilty men aren’t either.

          The second scenario we make AI material illegal. Now the ones with real CSAM go to prison, and many people with AI material do too because it’s illegal and they broke the law.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            This comment thread started with you implying that the AI was trained on illegal material, I’m really not sure how it’s got to this point from that one.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Im completely against restrictions on art depictions and writing. Those don’t have the dangers of being real but being pawned off as fake.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The comment I’m responding to is proposing a situation in which it isn’t illegal.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      If it’s illegal, and they produce the AI CSAM anyway, they’ve broken the law and are by definition not Innocent.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      To be honest, if it prevents that one guilty man from carrying out such high degrees of abuse to a dozen children, I can’t say I’d say no.

      I want to stress that this isn’t sensationalist grandstanding like wanting to ban rock music or video games or spying on all digital communication in the name of protecting the children. It’s just the pragmatic approach towards preventing CSAM in an age where the “know it when I see it” definition of pornographic material is starting to blur the lines.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well, your philosophy runs counter to the fundamentals of Western justice systems, then.

        • Stovetop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Why is that? I’d consider this equivalent to the (justified) banning of Nazi imagery in countries like Germany, Austria, Norway, Australia, etc.

          No one is harmed by a piece of paper or cloth with a symbol on it, but harm happens because of the symbol’s implications.

          “Authorized” AI-generated or illustrated depictions of CSAM validate the sexualization of children in general, and should not be permitted, in my opinion. If it enables real CSAM to continue, then AI-generated content is not victimless, and therefore I don’t think these hypothetical individuals going to prison for it are necessarily innocent.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            It’s not the specific thing being made illegal, it’s the underlying philosophy of “Better a dozen innocent men go to prison than one guilty man go free” I’m arguing against here. Most western justice systems operate under a principle of requiring guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is doubt then guilt cannot be considered proven and the person is not convicted.

            The comment I’m responding to is proposing a situation where non-AI-generated images are illegal but AI-generated ones aren’t, and that there’s no way to tell the difference just by looking at the image itself. In that situation you couldn’t convict someone merely based on the existence of the image because it could have been AI-generated. That’s fundamental to the “innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt” philosophy I’m talking about, to do otherwise would mean that innocent people could very easily be convicted of crimes they didn’t do.

            • Stovetop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              I guess we disagree on the criteria for innocent. I don’t see possession of such images as an innocent act, especially now that it is impossible to verify what is real or fake.

              • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                We aren’t disagreeing because that’s not what I was addressing in the first place. The comment I’m responding to, from Dave, reads:

                In that case probably the strongest argument is that if it were legal, many people would get off charges of real CSAM because the prosecuter can’t prove that it wasn’t AI generated.

                Emphasis added. The premise of the scenario is that possession of such images (ie, AI-generated CSAM) is not illegal. Given that, for purposes of argument, it follows that this would indeed be a valid defense. You’d need to prove in court that the CSAM pictures that you’re charging someone with possessing are not AI-generated, in that scenario.

                If you want to have a wider discussion of whether AI-generated CSAM images should be illegal, that’s a separate matter.