• kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Not necessarily. There’s been a lot of advances in watermarking AI outputs.

    As well, there’s the opposite argument.

    Right now, pedophile rings have very high price points to access CSAM or require users to upload original CSAM content, adding a significant motivator to actually harm children.

    The same way rule 34 artists were very upset with AI being able to create what they were getting commissions to create, AI generated CSAM would be a significant dilution of the market.

    Is the average user really going to risk prison, pay a huge amount of money or harm a child with an even greater prison risk when effectively identical material is available for free?

    Pretty much overnight the CSAM dark markets would lose the vast majority of their market value and the only remaining offerings would be ones that could demonstrate they weren’t artificial to justify the higher price point, which would undermine the notion of plausible deniability.

    Legalization of AI generated CSAM would decimate the existing CSAM markets.

    That said, the real question that needs to be answered from a social responsibility perspective is what the net effect of CSAM access by pedophiles has on their proclivity to offend. If there’s a negative effect then it’s an open and shut case that it should be legalized. If it’s a positive effect than we should probably keep it very much illegal, even if that continues to enable dark markets for the real thing.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Not necessarily. There’s been a lot of advances in watermarking AI outputs.

      That presumes that the image generation is being done by some corporation or government entity that adds the watermarks to AI outputs and doesn’t add them to non-AI outputs. I’m not thrilled that AI of this sort exists at all, but given that it does, I’d rather not have it controlled by such entities. We’re heading towards a world where we can all run that stuff on our own computers and control the watermarks ourselves. Is that good or bad? Probably bad, but having it under the exclusive control of megacorps has to be even worse.

      • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        How about any photo realistic image without a watermark is illegal? And the watermark kind of has to be traced back to author so you can’t just add it to real CP?

          • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Well the watermark would be a kind of signature that leads back to a registered artist.

            I think it makes sense to enforce this for all AI art, basically label it in a way that can be traced back to who produced it.

            And if you don’t want people to know you produced it, then you probably shouldn’t share it

              • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                It would be for using AI, not creating art.

                I’m just brainstorming here, but I can’t imagine how you would control AI art without some sort of regulation or licensing on the side of the AI creator…

                • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You’re quite correct your thinking it seems unrealistic to actually detect AI generated imagery after the fact so the only fill solution would be a trusted chain of custody - it wouldn’t necessarily need a centralized authority but it would require some highly trusted issuers of trust and, unfortunately, trust in media is currently at an all time low and those companies are in the best position to serve as those issuers.

                  This is a very complicated problem and we need a social (rather than a technical) solution.

    • HereToLurk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Is the average user really going to risk prison, pay a huge amount of money or harm a child with an even greater prison risk when effectively identical material is available for free?

      Average users aren’t pedophiles and it would appear that yes they would considering he did exactly that. He had access to tools that generated the material for free, which he then used to entice boys.