It may be the grownup answer, but given the absolute prevelence of baby rape amongst the epstein class.. We can wager that its not the correct answer, because it is stopping them from accessing a kind of baby rape (that was probably generated thanks to hundreds of thousands of images of actual baby rape being used in training).
because lets face it, Theres been no repercussions for any of it thus far, Why would they expect there to be any in the future.
I'm not saying I don't think it's possible, it's just that training models is not done by just Elon and a laptop on the sofa with a box of tissues - it's probably a small army of professionals that would all be aware of and have access to child porn - I just don't think (or don't want to believe?) there's no one who would blow the whistle
I just don’t think (or don’t want to believe?) there’s no one who would blow the whistle
Epstein ran a child sex ring for at least 20 years, and for most of that time we heard almost nothing umtil the end.. and largely, i imagine, because trumps an idiot in decline.
So it's entirely possible he did visit the island, just that there's no evidence recorded in a log of who went via helicopter (or, at least, none made public), unlike that for the 'Lolita Express', for example.
Musk is already directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people at the very least.
He is not vile
He is pure evil
When I grew up, I saw so many cartoons and kid shows that showed some evilndude being stopped by a hero and if not that, all of humanity
In reality, there are no heroes, just humanity, and much, if not most of humanity doesn't even allow him to live, they allow himn to continue to kill and they celebrate his evil mind
It makes companies liable for people using ai for nudification (which of course includes children). Musk argues the law is a bit to far reaching ( claims the law considers some body parts, that are commonly displayed in public, as private parts and also that the company can get in trouble for people nudifying themselves).
I don't know how legitimate Musk's concerns are, but the image is extremely misleading.
The damages are brought up in a civil trial, so I guess while someone could bring a case to trial for nudifying themselves, I imagine it'd be tossed out immediately:
An individual depicted in an image or video that was
nudified in violation of this section may bring a civil action in district court against the
person who violated this section
These are the body parts listed:
"Intimate parts" includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.
From what I understand the law applies to adults too.
I'm all for stopping pedophiles, but laws need controlled scope and nuance. Reality is complex and I don't want to see innocent stuff criminalized more than we do already.
Actually, I'm not okay with that. But I'm also not okay with hamfisted laws that would probably criminalize my mom AI up-sampling my old baby pictures.
Yeah, even for adults I feel this borders way too close on deepfakes. We needed to ban those years ago. I simply do not see any artistic nor educational context to justify nudifying someone without consent.
And this isn't unheard of, even in America. Even with caricatures you can wander close to libel if you're drawing someone like that .
Sure, but it's one thing if your parents took a picture of you having a bath in the sink. It's another if someone took a picture of a baby at a beach then asked grok to generate an image of them having a bath in the sink.
The nuance here is somebody is using AI to generate these images, not that these images exist. Much like how it's legal and reasonable for me to take nude pictures to share with my partner, but it is not legal or reasonable for someone we don't know to take nude pictures of me through my window to send to my partner. The pictures exist in both situations, how they were obtained matters.
My issue with a lot of these laws is a lack of this nuance.
And the unspoken idea that they can reasonably know the context. How can the AI bot know if consent was acquired? This is a practical concern, if you require the sufficiently improbable you are essentially banning a thing in all contexts. Even me making a photo of myself.
I am fine with people being unable to use AI to make nude photos of themselves in order to prevent people using AI to make nude images of others.
You need to consider the risk of letting anyone being allowed to make a nude image of anyone, versus the "cost" of if you want a nude photo of yourself you'll just have to take it in the mirror.
Most phone cameras use AI image enhancement. I'd need to buy a film camera to take a nude selfie. It's hamfisted overreach into the lives of the general public.
Yeah, its not naked kids specifically but "nudification" in general. And what's considered private? A woman's chest? OK but how far down? Stuff like that.
I'd imagine Google or Apple or any tech/AI company would do the same to protect their product or whatever. But they make it seem like this was a tool Elon specifically designed so he can see naked kids.
Elon's under the most scrutiny because Grok is the least restricted LLM. Of course om reasonably worried that they are blocking this for less savory reasons.
Literally nothing that Racist PedoFascist does in legitimate. He just doesn't want to be sued because he made CP machine which I garuntee he gets high AF to and jerks off to. Especially since Epstein wouldn't let him on the island.
here’s a quick way to determine if the concerns are legit:
are they from a capitalist? yes? then they are not legit concerns because fuck what they think. they **should be responsible ** for what ppl do on their platforms.
heck it’s why i worry about my own federated instance. my server is now beholden to content i did not create? nope. not gonna take that risk.
The government is capitalist as well, this doesn't have much to do with the political spectrum.
It's a bit weird that you say they should be responsable and then mention the problems that it causes for smaller platforms like Lemmy. Your argument goes against your point. No instance would be able to take that risk.
That being said, at this point, it seems clear that X is literally trying to encourage it and isn't actually moderating properly it's platform.
no see. i recognize that i can’t do it because i can’t afford what would be required to do it. this doesn’t mean i won’t donate to a service i feel needs help. just that i won't do it alone. a co-op lemmy instance is… very much not the same as a capitalist corporation run by a trillionaire.
fair point and i’m not holding firm to imperfect ideas. also, here’s the thing: i think “if you host it you are responsible.” even if it’s a small lemmy instance or x.
because, small hosts will get swatted and shot. large corp hosts have lawyers. so .. they must all be responsible for what they host if that level of gap exists. i remember hosting in the 90’s, and even my own crap was stupid - just a db of payphone numbers, stuff like that for phreaks. i wasn’t stileproject lol. but … if a used posted shit, it was still on my server. (a beefy! 486 dx/2!)
i mean sure, maybe we could claim “if you are a corp, then responsible, if you are a non profit or self hosted then no..” but the thing abt the net is - any hole, anywhere, eventually gets filled with csam and horseshit. it fucking sucks. but it’s true.
if corps were held accountable for that which they allow, the massive bulk of the problems would disappear, just from a ratio pov, no? ignoring the other problem that musk wants to be allowed to host csam because he profits from it and is a pedo as well.
And this is why whether it's Reddit or this site it doesn't make a difference. Clickbait and dumb people always dominate the conversation and nuance is immediately thrown out the window because nuance does not translate well on the internet when you are trying to gather points.
The worst part is that this guy actually has endless things you can point to to show what a scumbag he is but yet there has to be stuff like this that delegitimizes opposition to him.
Fuck that, he should be 100% liable if he sells a machine that is ised to make child porn wtf you mean clickbait. This is the only way to stop it, otherwise it's going to happen because the companies will make money off it.
Why not make PC manufacturers responsible for crimes committed on the computer? Because it makes selling computers impossible, the technical requirements are impossible to fulfill in any economic feasible way.
Besides there are open source stable diffusion AI models already that you can train to generate this stuff locally, on your own PC. Do you want all open source AI banned?
Maybe you do. The AI corporations would love that too. I don't.
Why not make PC manufacturers responsible for crimes committed on the computer?
Wrong example. This is more like YouTube being responsible for hosting CSAM that gets uploaded to them. We do in fact hold then accountable.
The implication here is that AI gets trained on CSAM to perform such tasks and that's probably a line we need to draw immediately before this gets out of hand.
there are open source stable diffusion AI models already that you can train to generate this stuff locally, on your own PC
Because law needs to be very precise and nuanced otherwise you end up with complete nonsense laws that infringe on the rights of people. I 100% agree AI child porn is awful and should be figured out. But if the law is no crafted correctly it creates problems. It's clickbait because the image just implies that Elon Musk is in favor of people generating child porn but I'm sure its more nuanced than that if you take a look. Thats all I'm saying
I haven't looked at this in depth, but some of the scholars I follow have suggested that this law is legally problematic, and there are good arguments to strike it down under the first amendment and section 230.
Section 230 is the federal safe harbor law that shields social media from liability for their users content, provided they take certain reasonable steps to moderate the user content. The federal law will preempt this Minnesota state law if they conflict.
So is adobe liable content created or altered in photoshop? You can see AI as an advanced computing platform that comes with a free "worker". A worker that the user controls and the company can't really.
If Elon can make his AI spout right wing talking points, he can make it censor itself from making nude images of children, and if he can't, he deserves the full weight of the law against him. This isn't free speech, it's csam, and I don't care what excuses and get out clauses you want to invent, stopping it is right.
Section 230 should only cover user contributed content, not corpo AI created content. And even then algorithm promoted content shouldn’t be covered either.
The application has normal non fucked up things it's used for. It's not a "make naked kids app". It's like going after Photoshop.
Damn near anything can be used to do something illegal. It's the same overbearing government control that has been playing big brother to 3D printers. Go after the person doing something illegal instead of screwing with everyone and everything else.
No, no, hard disagree. First go after the people making the csam generator and refusing to countenance censoring it from that. No excuses. No comparing csam to free speech or 3D printing.
You just scraped right over me comparing it to Photoshop.
You're only like this because Musk is a douchebag. Take him out of the equation. It's a photo editor. There's tons of them. It's idiotic to go after a program or anything just because it can be used by bad people. Go after the people.
It's the same shit as tor or vpns or Linux or 3d printers or GrapheneOS. "oh. Think of the children. Think of the terrorists. Think of the violence". It's all the same bullshit.
What's the next stop down after going after a photo editor? I guess the only way to make sure they aren't used for csam is to only have photo editors that are used over the cloud so all images can be scanned and interpreted.
You just scraped right over me comparing it to Photoshop.
And I'll skip right over you comparing it to scissors and paper too.
It’s the same shit as tor or vpns or Linux or 3d printers or GrapheneOS
No, none of them generate csam.
I'm not supporting banning Photoshop or tor, or even ai based image manipulation - that one was your straw man.
I'm only going after a company if their software generates csam. Simple. If they tell me it can't be done, I tell them they need to either keep working until it can, or make some other software.
Don't tell me an ai can't recognise csam because recognition is a neural network's strong suit. If you can instruct it to make it, you build it to reject prompts that involve nudity and minors and warn users that if they try again it'll inform on them to the FBI and Interpol. If that means that the companies won't risk generative being used on adult porn, I really don't care.
Musk wants this csam feature for himself and his porn-generating customers. And I don't care that it's Musk. I'd go for Microsoft and Google and Anthropic and anyone else, and I wouldn't be sorry if the whole LLM industry went bust. The biggest, most unsustainable financial bubble ever is going to burst and take the economy with it anyway. It was only ever a redundancy machine anyway, and I won't miss it.
Your requests to visit the island for one of my wildest parties have become annoying, and I'm tired of side-stepping them, so I'm going to be straight with you: You will NOT be visiting my island.
It's hard enough to keep these girls in the game as it is, forcing them to pretend to enjoy fucking these fat old sweaty pervs. You are scary enough with your clothes on, I can't imagine how terrified the girls would be with a naked goblin hopping around, hollering incomprehensible nonsense. They're only little girls, after all.
So, the answer is No, you can't come to my island. Stop begging.
Honestly, fuck Musk, but the fact that we're willing to throw away all of our principles simply because Musk is involved is pretty terrifying to witness. Remember, every privacy-violating and rights-stripping law is sold as being "for the children." And those selling those laws make a point to sell the laws in ways that appeal to both sides. When selling it to Democrats, they'll highlight Musk's opposition. When selling it to Republicans, they would find some Democrat who opposed it. And people of both parties eat it right up.
For example, even the headline is deceiving. Think about it critically. Why would the Minnesota legislature need to ban AI-generated child porn? Child porn is already incredibly illegal, regardless of how it's made.
What the law actually does is to attempt to ban or restrict AI-based nudify apps, where you can upload an image of someone and have it remove their clothes. This applies to images of everyone, not just children. And just like the case of facial scans and ID uploading, inevitably such a law will restrict a hell of a lot more than just child porn.
From another article:
In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI — whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere — said it does not contest the state’s interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota’s law “extends far beyond that goal,” banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation.
What legitimate uses might exist? Well what if I want to use a nudify program on images of myself? I don't particularly want to do that. But why shouldn't I be able to? My body. My image. My choice. My computer. What if a sex worker wants to do so? Or if you lock down LLMs to try to keep them from generating such images, what other types of images that have nothing to do with nonconsensual pornography will you also restrict?
You should generally be extremely skeptical of anyone selling a policy "for the children." In almost every case, the real goal is stripping away broader rights.
To me, this seems a lot like banning cameras in the name of fighting child pornography.
Well what if I want to use a nudify program on images of myself? I don’t particularly want to do that. But why shouldn’t I be able to?
"Well what if I want to use a bank robbery to withdraw money from my own bank account? I don't particularly want to do that. But why shouldn't I be able to?"
Get in front of a mirror and take a fucking picture of yourself nude if you so wish.
you're kinda close, but still missing the mark... but if you didn't understand the point, you have your mind set to being stupid and stubborn & I won't waste energy trying to sway your opinion.
If you're not willing to fight for your constitutional rights, then you don't deserve to have them, and you will lose them.
Whether you think it's right or not, being able to create nudified images of yourself is a perfectly valid and constitutionally protected action, just like making pornography generally. And any attempt to ban these apps would also restrict numerous other constitutionally protected activities and involve severe violations of privacy.
If you want to make an actual reply that gets to the core of my argument, rather than just going, "bruh, you think you should be able to rob a bank, no I refuse to actually explain anything, if you don't get my unstated point, you're a moron," then go ahead.
Constitutional rights are important. You cannot choose to abandon them just because you find one application of them distasteful.
We can ban AI child porn by just treating it like any other child porn. We don't try to regulate child porn by outlawing cameras. Go after the actual crime you want to prevent, not the tools that have many legitimate uses.
We don’t try to regulate child porn by outlawing cameras.
No, we try to ban it in its entirety by outlawing csam generating machines. Simple. If they can't make they app without making the csam, they should not be allowed to make the app, and no, csam is not a first amendment right.
Come on, that's a warped bad-faith take and you know it. Making child porn with a film camera is illegal. Every camera is capable of making child porn. But we don't outlaw cameras, or adult pornography, simply because the same tools allow the creation of child porn.
No, you are defending pedophiles. Stop it. It's not a good look.
Imagine an artist consortium in Maine run by a venture capitalist. Imagine they take comissions - you submit your request and electronic payment, and they email your art back to you in a week. Protected first amendment "speech"? OK. Now imagine they're well known for generating csam and the CEO refuses to intervene. First amendment doesn't protect them or the CEO, and an awful lot of them are going to jail for a long time.
Was there anything the CEO could have done? Of course there was. Is there anything LLM companies could do? You're flat out lying if you say there isn't. And unlike you, I don't care if they as a company decide to refuse to process any nude images as a result of their unwillingness to take on the risk or the complexity. But I think it's a lot easier than people claim for a company that literally makes very sophisticated neural networks anyway and it wouldn't stop them making image manipulation ai.
Think about it critically. Why would the Minnesota legislature need to ban AI-generated child porn? Child porn is already incredibly illegal, regardless of how it’s made.
To make a quick reply, you might want to look in to that. In some places if it isn't a deepfake of a real child it's as legal as the anime folk who draw the same awful shit, including some of the US.
Seems weird as fuck to me, because that's putting the burden of proof on law enforcement and the courts to show that a person or act in a very real looking image actually took place. Checking now I see some things saying it's not specifically criminalized in 10 states and some things saying 5.
I'd say at least the federal government has made it clear it's considered every bit as bad as non-ai images of the same thing, but I can't even bring myself to believe the federal government is doing a damn thing about child rape any more. :/
Which is bad. Not good. Yes, if someone makes deepfake child porn of a real kid that's definitely very awful and bad. But it should also be just as illegal to make AI generated porn of children even if they're not deepfakes of real kids.
Anime/digital images of minors having sex having been a thing for decades has fucked things up. Those have been criminalized in some places in the world, but are considered distasteful but legal art in lots of others. Since AI generated images are fictional digital images created entirely by a computer and don't depict an actual crime taking place against an actual child, they can fall into the same legal area as hand drawn or other digitally made images of the same thing.
Laws focusing only on deepfakes of real kids are not good things, because all they do is put the burden of proof on the prosecution. It means that they need to prove this massive collection of photos of child rape they found on Steve Miller's laptop are meant to depicting real kids, which means they need to find the real kids with nothing but AI generated photos of child rape before they can prove a crime has been committed.
When it's found that someone has images of kids being raped, that should be enough. Whether you can ever locate the actual kids in the photos, whether you can ever prove this person is guilty of raping kids, possession of the photos in and of itself should be enough for them to be locked up, cause farther investigation, and for them to be sent to prison even if no farther crimes are discovered.
No one should be able to say "Oh, those aren't fakes of real kids, it's just fictional art." and have that be an actual legal defense. This is potentially why Elon Musk wants to stop this bill. There are definitely people who want it to remain a legal loophole and possible viable defense for those caught with CSAM.
We must PROTECT the Children by OUTLAWING Child Porn Creators! ALLOWING Child Porn Creators to know EXACTLY where Children are ALL The time via ID Verifications!
the entire point of AI is to remove accountability from the process. if there are consequences, theres no reason to use AI and Elon's investments are wasted.
To be fair, what's the point of the bill? Child porn is already illegal. It's like the bills banning non-citizens from voting.
While they're at it, why not ban murder, theft, and drunk driving?
Historically, bills like this that appear to be so obviously "good" are often traps that contain unrelated, nefarious shit. Like hiding a ban on abortion inside a bill that's supposed to be about banning something everyone hates.
I'm highly skeptical of the bill but at the same time I wouldn't put it past Elon to be against it for all the wrong reasons 🤷
I read the bill and there are explicit provisions about prohibiting websites from allowing users to create nudified images without technical skill. I don't know existing laws but they might not have put the onus on the company/website and just on the users. This is the full bill, it's a single page: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2025/0/HF/1606/versions/latest/
EDIT: Should point out that the bill is for any unwanted AI Generated nudes of identifiable people, not just minors.
But this closes the hole that the images are of people who dont exist so they are ageless. Idk of anyone has challenged it with that strategy but I can see the supreme cunts ruling that since they are not real people its not CSM. I haven't read the bill but I hope this is the intention.
I think one of the best arguments to ban AI child porn is because the models have to be trained on something, and that something would be of real children and therefore not a 'victimless' crime in that sense.
Seems fair. Is that really how the training works though? You'd hope they'd have a first-level filtering process that flags things before they get fed into the model but who knows.
There's no way they had any sort of filtering. That would add way too much time and cost to the process of shoving in as much data as possible as fast as possible.
Oh shit you're right. The legislation I was referencing apparently passed a year ago. I guess if my concern was legit it would have manifested already.
Yeah, most things that check for CSM content compare it with fuzzy hashes of known CSM content. Source: I teach cybersecurity classes and frequently have guest speakers from 3-letter agencies.
CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material), not child porn. Child porn implies they are complicit or that its a genre of porn. CSAM confirms that it exists exclusively to abuse children and they were abused in the making.
PORNOGRAPHYthe depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures, movies, or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
Pornography is not a wrong word to use, and children can never consent to sexual acts. If children are involved in pornography it is abuse material and nothing else. There is no need to make up a new word for it.
CSAM gives the same vibes as MAP instead of paedophile
For me the distinction lies in the word erotic. A basal attraction based on traits of the other.
When two or more people are involved then I would expand the same criteria to all involved. And that's were I am getting stuck. The victim's are for sure not enjoying themselves and the interaction in general and dfntl arent attracted to the abuser.
My argument being: (child) sexual abuse (or rather violence) is shown to be about power and control rather than sexuality. Its just using the same media as sexual acts. So child abuse has as much to do with porn just as swimming does with being held underwater and drowned.
yes and we should normalize referring it to the abuse that it is, however, boomers reading shared fb posts don’t know what csam is and do know that “p*rn bad”
I got a jury duty summons a while ago and it stated what the defendant is being charged with and it was possession and distribution of child pornography. So that is what the federal government in the us appears to call it still.
I think you need to reread Orwell. And I'm not talking about 1984. Much of what Orwell wrote and was concerned about was the watering down and softening of language. And don't knee-jerk think of just the popular surface-level image of 1984. We're not talking government censorship or surveillance here. We're talking about the long-term watering down of the language to strip it of its impact and power.
I get that what you're saying is technically true, but we don't need our language to be perfectly technically accurate, if the cost is taking away all the power of the words.
"Child Sexual Abuse Material." Really? You just turned a 2 syllable label into a 10 syllable label. And you robbed the words of all their emotional impact and power.
"Child porn." I instantly know exactly what that is. That has a very clear and specific meaning that anyone can understand in an instant. Everyone has seen porn and calls it as such. Append the word -child in front of that, and healthy people will feel an instant sense of revulsion in their stomach. "Child porn" is a label with POWER.
"Child Sexual Abuse Material." What the fuck does that even mean? That could mean child porn. That could mean objects or tools used in the making of child porn. That could mean a newspaper article describing child porn. A book to train therapist on the effects of child abuse is, quite literally, "child sexual abuse material." All of these things are material relating to child sexual abuse. By trying to make the label as bland and inoffensive as possible, you've taken all the gravity from it.
CSAM and bloated labels like it really get under my skin. It's what Orwell warned us about.
And really, I think such things represent everything wrong with modern liberalism. A lot of liberal groups make the terrible mistake of focusing more on precise, perfectly non-offensive labeling than effective communication.
It's child porn. "Child sexual abuse material" is too weak and generic a word to be effective. Read your Orwell. He warned us about this.
I don't know of a single person who would hear "child porn" and think it's somehow harmless.
If you're used to hearing "child porn" and someone says "child sexual abuse material" you wouldn't think it's CP, since then they'd just say CP. It must be some kind of sexual abuse that is not as bad as CP, since they would call it that otherwise.
It's even worse since "Child sexual abuse material" is so fucking long noone bothers to write it all, they just say CSAM, which has no meaning. If you don't know what CSAM means, you won't be shocked at all about the news. Meanwhile CP is most oftenly written as "child porn", mostly using CP when "child porn" was already said. CP is a non-confusing name that everyone is familiar with, that is much more descriptive, and should generate hatred in the mind of any healthy person.
The only reason CSAM is used is because of American puritanism doesn't let you say "porn", which permeates to every enterprise setting. So you can't call your software "child porn detection software" (think of the children!) you have to call it "CSAM detection software". Pair that with the obnoxious need of some people to come up with new names for everything and call you *-ist for using the "old" name. And suddenly headlines are filled with random 4 letter acronyms without meaning instead of using the appropriate words.
The point is not that anyone would think the label is describing something harmless. The point is that it strips words of their power. Orwell extended this to say that clear language produces clear thinking.
"Child sexual abuse material" vs "child porn."
"Age-restricted workforce implementation" vs "child labor."
"Involuntary sexual intercourse" vs "rape."
"Intentional cessation of third-party biological functions" vs "murder."
"The Twentieth Century European Jewry Demographic Crisis" vs "The Holocaust."
I can read the first version of each of those and understand their literal meaning just fine. But every syllable you add strips the power from the words. And much is lost as a consequence.
The point of communication is not only to impart the literal meaning of the words. It's also to communicate emotional impact. "CSAM" and "child porn" share the same literal meaning, but their emotional definition is entirely different. They describe the same thing, but they are not the same word.
I don't know anyone who would be confused by what "child porn" means. I think all this speech purity stuff distracts from the real harms going on. We don't need more "um akchually" energy injected into every political issue.
... After reading a few comments... a figure creeps into my mind from memory...
8 million.
That's how many children we're estimated to lose to the traffickers ((or whoever else) for who knows what horrors), per year, globally.
... And I don't think either of these, the politicians or the capitalists, are going to do even one honest thing to help solve this.
... And yet at their disposal, is the means.
... The stench of these psychopaths using this crime [as vast as it is], as a mere tool to carry on with all their other crimes, is sickening. ... How many of the 8 million, are used, not just to be abused, raped, eaten, but as tools of blackmail to usurp all these pseudo-democracies at these single points of failure, "our" "representatives", as they doubtless do throughout industry and elsewhere too. No strongman saviour to save us, nor our children.
We have to face the horror and come up with better/real remedies to this unacceptable monstrous situation.
[That 8 million figure, I heard elaborated upon, how it was derived, how it was extrapolated, estimated based on the known missing children and so on, from an "ex-"cia guy on some podcast interview... which I failed to find in a timely manner to add as reference here.]
Oh gee, I simply can’t imagine why. It’s a total mystery. /headscratch
Apropos of nothing, he’s always struck me as the sort of person who ‘well actually’s with ephebophilia, and his weird breeder fetish totally squicks me out.
I have not read the bill, but if I had to guess, there's probably a provision that states in cases of generations from cloud services, the service provider can be directly punished. They're so shit at keeping Grok on the rails, they know they're fucked if the bill passes.
Again, I haven't read the bill, but this seems likely.
I would love to read more on it because I genuinely don't know how this would be enforced.
This is the loli conundrum taken to AI slop. What's stopping someone from making someone appear young then slapping a "I'm actually 18" somewhere in the prompt? Like how does one enforce this? Is it just vibes "Well, this person looks under 18?"
They have detectors that work fairly well. Not perfect but at least it's something that can be verified by hand afterwards and reduces the workload. I'm fairly certain X isn't running them by choice though.
There are verifiably over 18s in Australia ending up in legal trouble for posting images of themselves already. People don't have rings like a tree. The edge cases are not trivial to work around when someone becomes legal literally overnight.
(That said: personally, I'm not sure it's really moral to be using AI to be making unconsenting nudes of over 18s either...)
Thank you, bluecheck fuckwads, paying his company to be noticed more, for your inaccurate clickbait shit-tier garbage. Our media landscapes' relationship with the truth wasn't tenuous enough, thanks for contributing!
I'm so fucking sick of people stretching the truth. It used to just be right-wingers and avoidable, now it's fucking everyone vomiting misinformation, that's what's wrong.
Beyond goddamn tired of the "wow, no way" turning into "that's not really what's happening" loop. I want a better internet.
I'm certain the rules needed to be added to all prompts would be a couple of sentences at most to significantly impede this. And its not like he's done this before -- remember the "Boer genocide" incident?
156 replies
Because Kaptain Ketamine knows that the main use of his "AI" is to generate child porn.
Because building a tool that can do anything is easier than building a tool that can't do evil.
It's the gun argument, where they absolve themselves and pass all responsibility to the end user.
This is the grownup and correct answer imo
It may be the grownup answer, but given the absolute prevelence of baby rape amongst the epstein class.. We can wager that its not the correct answer, because it is stopping them from accessing a kind of baby rape (that was probably generated thanks to hundreds of thousands of images of actual baby rape being used in training).
because lets face it, Theres been no repercussions for any of it thus far, Why would they expect there to be any in the future.
I'm not saying I don't think it's possible, it's just that training models is not done by just Elon and a laptop on the sofa with a box of tissues - it's probably a small army of professionals that would all be aware of and have access to child porn - I just don't think (or don't want to believe?) there's no one who would blow the whistle
Epstein ran a child sex ring for at least 20 years, and for most of that time we heard almost nothing umtil the end.. and largely, i imagine, because trumps an idiot in decline.
People come forward and then they are silenced.
He literally begged Epstein to let him show up on the Epstein child sex trafficking island. It doesn't take a genius to answer the title.
I still find it kind of funny that even the worst human beings on the face of the Earth can't tolerate him. Fuck Musk.
I find it funny that literally all the mods here are banned.
i find IT funny. Hes a bit of a clown.
Come again?
The mods of this community have been banned from the instance that the community is on. Kinda weird!
Well that's hilarious. I have no idea how that would work in practice.
Is Elon the only person on the planet who wanted to and could afford to go to pedo island but got turned down?
That was in the same email conversation where Epstein mentioned the helicopter.
"Epstein’s pilots kept standard FAA flight logs, listing takeoff/landing airports and crew, not details about passengers. Logs introduced in court only show names when required and are not full passenger manifests".
So it's entirely possible he did visit the island, just that there's no evidence recorded in a log of who went via helicopter (or, at least, none made public), unlike that for the 'Lolita Express', for example.
As least, that's what I believe.
AI slop is good for something after all...
Felt like one of the very few times grabbing a Gen AI image was appropriate lol.
Musk is already directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of people at the very least.
He is not vile
He is pure evil
When I grew up, I saw so many cartoons and kid shows that showed some evilndude being stopped by a hero and if not that, all of humanity
In reality, there are no heroes, just humanity, and much, if not most of humanity doesn't even allow him to live, they allow himn to continue to kill and they celebrate his evil mind
There is 1 hero, Luigi.
I think John Brown is still a hero.
#1
This image seems like misleading bull shit. This seems to be the law referenced: https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-artificial-intelligence-nudification-x-elon-musk-deepfake-131184be939d540de093b567b12c9e16
It makes companies liable for people using ai for nudification (which of course includes children). Musk argues the law is a bit to far reaching ( claims the law considers some body parts, that are commonly displayed in public, as private parts and also that the company can get in trouble for people nudifying themselves).
I don't know how legitimate Musk's concerns are, but the image is extremely misleading.
Dishonest clickbait for sure
Always relevant
The damages are brought up in a civil trial, so I guess while someone could bring a case to trial for nudifying themselves, I imagine it'd be tossed out immediately:
These are the body parts listed:
I have no issues with completely banning those parts for children. Only a sick fuck like Elon would say any of those are normal to see on a child.
You can see most of that on my baby pictures.
From what I understand the law applies to adults too.
I'm all for stopping pedophiles, but laws need controlled scope and nuance. Reality is complex and I don't want to see innocent stuff criminalized more than we do already.
So, you think it's ok for people to nudify you? How about your mother? Sister? It's not ok to nudify anyone without their consent.
Actually, I'm not okay with that. But I'm also not okay with hamfisted laws that would probably criminalize my mom AI up-sampling my old baby pictures.
Nuance. It's needed.
Yeah, even for adults I feel this borders way too close on deepfakes. We needed to ban those years ago. I simply do not see any artistic nor educational context to justify nudifying someone without consent.
And this isn't unheard of, even in America. Even with caricatures you can wander close to libel if you're drawing someone like that .
There's a difference between baby pictures and an AI generating nudes images from clothed pictures.
If you want to make nude fanart so bad, learn to draw.
If you want to eat hot food so bad, learn to cook over a fire. Electrical heat is evil for some unspecified reason.
Hello bad faith argument.
Yes, that's the point. It was bullshit logic when you used it too.
If I "just learn to draw" I can use it to draw nudes of people from clothed images. Or use photoshop.
Do you think this legislation has the nuance to handle even a distinction that broad? I don't.
Sure, but it's one thing if your parents took a picture of you having a bath in the sink. It's another if someone took a picture of a baby at a beach then asked grok to generate an image of them having a bath in the sink.
The nuance here is somebody is using AI to generate these images, not that these images exist. Much like how it's legal and reasonable for me to take nude pictures to share with my partner, but it is not legal or reasonable for someone we don't know to take nude pictures of me through my window to send to my partner. The pictures exist in both situations, how they were obtained matters.
My issue with a lot of these laws is a lack of this nuance.
And the unspoken idea that they can reasonably know the context. How can the AI bot know if consent was acquired? This is a practical concern, if you require the sufficiently improbable you are essentially banning a thing in all contexts. Even me making a photo of myself.
I am fine with people being unable to use AI to make nude photos of themselves in order to prevent people using AI to make nude images of others.
You need to consider the risk of letting anyone being allowed to make a nude image of anyone, versus the "cost" of if you want a nude photo of yourself you'll just have to take it in the mirror.
Most phone cameras use AI image enhancement. I'd need to buy a film camera to take a nude selfie. It's hamfisted overreach into the lives of the general public.
Yeah, its not naked kids specifically but "nudification" in general. And what's considered private? A woman's chest? OK but how far down? Stuff like that.
I'd imagine Google or Apple or any tech/AI company would do the same to protect their product or whatever. But they make it seem like this was a tool Elon specifically designed so he can see naked kids.
Elon's under the most scrutiny because Grok is the least restricted LLM. Of course om reasonably worried that they are blocking this for less savory reasons.
What do you mean by least restricted?
Grok will do a lot of things that Claude or gemini or OpenAI will refuse to do for you (at least without a lot of prodding)
He shouldn't have shoved it into every perverts hands.
Literally nothing that Racist PedoFascist does in legitimate. He just doesn't want to be sued because he made CP machine which I garuntee he gets high AF to and jerks off to. Especially since Epstein wouldn't let him on the island.
here’s a quick way to determine if the concerns are legit:
are they from a capitalist? yes? then they are not legit concerns because fuck what they think. they **should be responsible ** for what ppl do on their platforms.
heck it’s why i worry about my own federated instance. my server is now beholden to content i did not create? nope. not gonna take that risk.
The government is capitalist as well, this doesn't have much to do with the political spectrum.
It's a bit weird that you say they should be responsable and then mention the problems that it causes for smaller platforms like Lemmy. Your argument goes against your point. No instance would be able to take that risk.
That being said, at this point, it seems clear that X is literally trying to encourage it and isn't actually moderating properly it's platform.
no see. i recognize that i can’t do it because i can’t afford what would be required to do it. this doesn’t mean i won’t donate to a service i feel needs help. just that i won't do it alone. a co-op lemmy instance is… very much not the same as a capitalist corporation run by a trillionaire.
This new law ups what is required, to the point where I don't think any Lemmy instances would be able to meet it.
I don't think the law was written so it differentiates between X and Lemmy, though I might be mistaken.
fair point and i’m not holding firm to imperfect ideas. also, here’s the thing: i think “if you host it you are responsible.” even if it’s a small lemmy instance or x.
because, small hosts will get swatted and shot. large corp hosts have lawyers. so .. they must all be responsible for what they host if that level of gap exists. i remember hosting in the 90’s, and even my own crap was stupid - just a db of payphone numbers, stuff like that for phreaks. i wasn’t stileproject lol. but … if a used posted shit, it was still on my server. (a beefy! 486 dx/2!)
i mean sure, maybe we could claim “if you are a corp, then responsible, if you are a non profit or self hosted then no..” but the thing abt the net is - any hole, anywhere, eventually gets filled with csam and horseshit. it fucking sucks. but it’s true.
if corps were held accountable for that which they allow, the massive bulk of the problems would disappear, just from a ratio pov, no? ignoring the other problem that musk wants to be allowed to host csam because he profits from it and is a pedo as well.
And this is why whether it's Reddit or this site it doesn't make a difference. Clickbait and dumb people always dominate the conversation and nuance is immediately thrown out the window because nuance does not translate well on the internet when you are trying to gather points.
The worst part is that this guy actually has endless things you can point to to show what a scumbag he is but yet there has to be stuff like this that delegitimizes opposition to him.
Fuck that, he should be 100% liable if he sells a machine that is ised to make child porn wtf you mean clickbait. This is the only way to stop it, otherwise it's going to happen because the companies will make money off it.
Why not make PC manufacturers responsible for crimes committed on the computer? Because it makes selling computers impossible, the technical requirements are impossible to fulfill in any economic feasible way.
Besides there are open source stable diffusion AI models already that you can train to generate this stuff locally, on your own PC. Do you want all open source AI banned?
Maybe you do. The AI corporations would love that too. I don't.
Wrong example. This is more like YouTube being responsible for hosting CSAM that gets uploaded to them. We do in fact hold then accountable.
The implication here is that AI gets trained on CSAM to perform such tasks and that's probably a line we need to draw immediately before this gets out of hand.
And you train it on what, Mr Epstein? 🤨
Because law needs to be very precise and nuanced otherwise you end up with complete nonsense laws that infringe on the rights of people. I 100% agree AI child porn is awful and should be figured out. But if the law is no crafted correctly it creates problems. It's clickbait because the image just implies that Elon Musk is in favor of people generating child porn but I'm sure its more nuanced than that if you take a look. Thats all I'm saying
I haven't looked at this in depth, but some of the scholars I follow have suggested that this law is legally problematic, and there are good arguments to strike it down under the first amendment and section 230.
Section 230 is the federal safe harbor law that shields social media from liability for their users content, provided they take certain reasonable steps to moderate the user content. The federal law will preempt this Minnesota state law if they conflict.
But in the case of AI, it's company a generated content.
So is adobe liable content created or altered in photoshop? You can see AI as an advanced computing platform that comes with a free "worker". A worker that the user controls and the company can't really.
If Elon can make his AI spout right wing talking points, he can make it censor itself from making nude images of children, and if he can't, he deserves the full weight of the law against him. This isn't free speech, it's csam, and I don't care what excuses and get out clauses you want to invent, stopping it is right.
Section 230 should only cover user contributed content, not corpo AI created content. And even then algorithm promoted content shouldn’t be covered either.
Government wanting to blame tools instead of what people do with the tools.
Next we should make Milwaukee stop selling saw zaws because they cut down flock cameras, or hammers because they can beat people in the head.
Saws-Alls*
Duuuude, it's like... they saw... all
I think you mean egg corn
I'm not sure I'm seeing the legitimate use case of turning pictures of children into nude pictures of children.
The application has normal non fucked up things it's used for. It's not a "make naked kids app". It's like going after Photoshop.
Damn near anything can be used to do something illegal. It's the same overbearing government control that has been playing big brother to 3D printers. Go after the person doing something illegal instead of screwing with everyone and everything else.
No, no, hard disagree. First go after the people making the csam generator and refusing to countenance censoring it from that. No excuses. No comparing csam to free speech or 3D printing.
You just scraped right over me comparing it to Photoshop.
You're only like this because Musk is a douchebag. Take him out of the equation. It's a photo editor. There's tons of them. It's idiotic to go after a program or anything just because it can be used by bad people. Go after the people.
It's the same shit as tor or vpns or Linux or 3d printers or GrapheneOS. "oh. Think of the children. Think of the terrorists. Think of the violence". It's all the same bullshit.
What's the next stop down after going after a photo editor? I guess the only way to make sure they aren't used for csam is to only have photo editors that are used over the cloud so all images can be scanned and interpreted.
And I'll skip right over you comparing it to scissors and paper too.
No, none of them generate csam.
I'm not supporting banning Photoshop or tor, or even ai based image manipulation - that one was your straw man.
I'm only going after a company if their software generates csam. Simple. If they tell me it can't be done, I tell them they need to either keep working until it can, or make some other software.
Don't tell me an ai can't recognise csam because recognition is a neural network's strong suit. If you can instruct it to make it, you build it to reject prompts that involve nudity and minors and warn users that if they try again it'll inform on them to the FBI and Interpol. If that means that the companies won't risk generative being used on adult porn, I really don't care.
Musk wants this csam feature for himself and his porn-generating customers. And I don't care that it's Musk. I'd go for Microsoft and Google and Anthropic and anyone else, and I wouldn't be sorry if the whole LLM industry went bust. The biggest, most unsustainable financial bubble ever is going to burst and take the economy with it anyway. It was only ever a redundancy machine anyway, and I won't miss it.
Let's ban knives because people use them to kill!
In the UK before AI even existed our laws covered this and make it illegal.
Afaik loli is also illegal and considered CSAM in the US so I have no idea why AI images wouldnt be similarly illegal
Logically, I mean. Practically, like most things in America, I know the answer is "because rich people want it that way, fuck you"
Exactly when again is the wildest party on your friends’ island, Elon?
Elon was friend with Jeff but Jeff wasn't friends with him. Kinda awkward.
Dear Elon:
Your requests to visit the island for one of my wildest parties have become annoying, and I'm tired of side-stepping them, so I'm going to be straight with you: You will NOT be visiting my island.
It's hard enough to keep these girls in the game as it is, forcing them to pretend to enjoy fucking these fat old sweaty pervs. You are scary enough with your clothes on, I can't imagine how terrified the girls would be with a naked goblin hopping around, hollering incomprehensible nonsense. They're only little girls, after all.
So, the answer is No, you can't come to my island. Stop begging.
Your friend,
Jeff
"Barrel chested ewok you look like you eat gravel" was my favourite description of him
...and why do you think your calls were sent to voicemail?
I mean... why would you imagine a person would block the banning of child porn? Occam's razor says he enjoys child porn.
Honestly, fuck Musk, but the fact that we're willing to throw away all of our principles simply because Musk is involved is pretty terrifying to witness. Remember, every privacy-violating and rights-stripping law is sold as being "for the children." And those selling those laws make a point to sell the laws in ways that appeal to both sides. When selling it to Democrats, they'll highlight Musk's opposition. When selling it to Republicans, they would find some Democrat who opposed it. And people of both parties eat it right up.
For example, even the headline is deceiving. Think about it critically. Why would the Minnesota legislature need to ban AI-generated child porn? Child porn is already incredibly illegal, regardless of how it's made.
What the law actually does is to attempt to ban or restrict AI-based nudify apps, where you can upload an image of someone and have it remove their clothes. This applies to images of everyone, not just children. And just like the case of facial scans and ID uploading, inevitably such a law will restrict a hell of a lot more than just child porn.
From another article:
What legitimate uses might exist? Well what if I want to use a nudify program on images of myself? I don't particularly want to do that. But why shouldn't I be able to? My body. My image. My choice. My computer. What if a sex worker wants to do so? Or if you lock down LLMs to try to keep them from generating such images, what other types of images that have nothing to do with nonconsensual pornography will you also restrict?
You should generally be extremely skeptical of anyone selling a policy "for the children." In almost every case, the real goal is stripping away broader rights.
To me, this seems a lot like banning cameras in the name of fighting child pornography.
"Well what if I want to use a bank robbery to withdraw money from my own bank account? I don't particularly want to do that. But why shouldn't I be able to?"
Get in front of a mirror and take a fucking picture of yourself nude if you so wish.
Have a better example?
Bank robbery is theft, hardly a protected First Amendment activity.
you're kinda close, but still missing the mark... but if you didn't understand the point, you have your mind set to being stupid and stubborn & I won't waste energy trying to sway your opinion.
If you're not willing to fight for your constitutional rights, then you don't deserve to have them, and you will lose them.
Whether you think it's right or not, being able to create nudified images of yourself is a perfectly valid and constitutionally protected action, just like making pornography generally. And any attempt to ban these apps would also restrict numerous other constitutionally protected activities and involve severe violations of privacy.
If you want to make an actual reply that gets to the core of my argument, rather than just going, "bruh, you think you should be able to rob a bank, no I refuse to actually explain anything, if you don't get my unstated point, you're a moron," then go ahead.
Constitutional rights are important. You cannot choose to abandon them just because you find one application of them distasteful.
We can ban AI child porn by just treating it like any other child porn. We don't try to regulate child porn by outlawing cameras. Go after the actual crime you want to prevent, not the tools that have many legitimate uses.
No, we try to ban it in its entirety by outlawing csam generating machines. Simple. If they can't make they app without making the csam, they should not be allowed to make the app, and no, csam is not a first amendment right.
By your logic, we should outlaw cameras. Every camera is capable of making child pornography.
Generating csam is not a first amendment activity, you are talking crap.
Come on, that's a warped bad-faith take and you know it. Making child porn with a film camera is illegal. Every camera is capable of making child porn. But we don't outlaw cameras, or adult pornography, simply because the same tools allow the creation of child porn.
You are talking crap.
No, you are defending pedophiles. Stop it. It's not a good look.
Imagine an artist consortium in Maine run by a venture capitalist. Imagine they take comissions - you submit your request and electronic payment, and they email your art back to you in a week. Protected first amendment "speech"? OK. Now imagine they're well known for generating csam and the CEO refuses to intervene. First amendment doesn't protect them or the CEO, and an awful lot of them are going to jail for a long time.
Was there anything the CEO could have done? Of course there was. Is there anything LLM companies could do? You're flat out lying if you say there isn't. And unlike you, I don't care if they as a company decide to refuse to process any nude images as a result of their unwillingness to take on the risk or the complexity. But I think it's a lot easier than people claim for a company that literally makes very sophisticated neural networks anyway and it wouldn't stop them making image manipulation ai.
To make a quick reply, you might want to look in to that. In some places if it isn't a deepfake of a real child it's as legal as the anime folk who draw the same awful shit, including some of the US.
Seems weird as fuck to me, because that's putting the burden of proof on law enforcement and the courts to show that a person or act in a very real looking image actually took place. Checking now I see some things saying it's not specifically criminalized in 10 states and some things saying 5.
I'd say at least the federal government has made it clear it's considered every bit as bad as non-ai images of the same thing, but I can't even bring myself to believe the federal government is doing a damn thing about child rape any more. :/
This is literally what the law is trying to stop.
Which is bad. Not good. Yes, if someone makes deepfake child porn of a real kid that's definitely very awful and bad. But it should also be just as illegal to make AI generated porn of children even if they're not deepfakes of real kids.
Anime/digital images of minors having sex having been a thing for decades has fucked things up. Those have been criminalized in some places in the world, but are considered distasteful but legal art in lots of others. Since AI generated images are fictional digital images created entirely by a computer and don't depict an actual crime taking place against an actual child, they can fall into the same legal area as hand drawn or other digitally made images of the same thing.
Laws focusing only on deepfakes of real kids are not good things, because all they do is put the burden of proof on the prosecution. It means that they need to prove this massive collection of photos of child rape they found on Steve Miller's laptop are meant to depicting real kids, which means they need to find the real kids with nothing but AI generated photos of child rape before they can prove a crime has been committed.
When it's found that someone has images of kids being raped, that should be enough. Whether you can ever locate the actual kids in the photos, whether you can ever prove this person is guilty of raping kids, possession of the photos in and of itself should be enough for them to be locked up, cause farther investigation, and for them to be sent to prison even if no farther crimes are discovered.
No one should be able to say "Oh, those aren't fakes of real kids, it's just fictional art." and have that be an actual legal defense. This is potentially why Elon Musk wants to stop this bill. There are definitely people who want it to remain a legal loophole and possible viable defense for those caught with CSAM.
We must PROTECT the Children by
OUTLAWING Child Porn Creators!ALLOWING Child Porn Creators to know EXACTLY where Children are ALL The time via ID Verifications!the entire point of AI is to remove accountability from the process. if there are consequences, theres no reason to use AI and Elon's investments are wasted.
TEMU Lex Luther can fuck right off
To be fair, what's the point of the bill? Child porn is already illegal. It's like the bills banning non-citizens from voting.
While they're at it, why not ban murder, theft, and drunk driving?
Historically, bills like this that appear to be so obviously "good" are often traps that contain unrelated, nefarious shit. Like hiding a ban on abortion inside a bill that's supposed to be about banning something everyone hates.
I'm highly skeptical of the bill but at the same time I wouldn't put it past Elon to be against it for all the wrong reasons 🤷
I read the bill and there are explicit provisions about prohibiting websites from allowing users to create nudified images without technical skill. I don't know existing laws but they might not have put the onus on the company/website and just on the users. This is the full bill, it's a single page: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2025/0/HF/1606/versions/latest/
EDIT: Should point out that the bill is for any unwanted AI Generated nudes of identifiable people, not just minors.
Exactly. It's all about nudification of anyone using AI tools. Not explicitly about children.
Yes, clarified my previous comment to include that fact since it was misleading based on the screenshot. Thanks.
They already have.
But this closes the hole that the images are of people who dont exist so they are ageless. Idk of anyone has challenged it with that strategy but I can see the supreme cunts ruling that since they are not real people its not CSM. I haven't read the bill but I hope this is the intention.
In your example it'd be CSM, just not CSAM I guess, technically. I think this is more about undressing real people though
I think one of the best arguments to ban AI child porn is because the models have to be trained on something, and that something would be of real children and therefore not a 'victimless' crime in that sense.
Seems fair. Is that really how the training works though? You'd hope they'd have a first-level filtering process that flags things before they get fed into the model but who knows.
There's no way they had any sort of filtering. That would add way too much time and cost to the process of shoving in as much data as possible as fast as possible.
The law in question is a Minnesota State Law, not a federal one. Trump isn't involved. Pretty sure that Walz is who would be signing it into law.
Whatever you found in Congress is concerning, though.
Oh shit you're right. The legislation I was referencing apparently passed a year ago. I guess if my concern was legit it would have manifested already.
I'm more concerned about the origins of data used by Musk's Company to train the models !
Many auto moderation tools use actual csam as reference so probably from there if i had to guess.
Isn't it hash values of it rather than actual images? Or am I thinking of something else.
Yeah, most things that check for CSM content compare it with fuzzy hashes of known CSM content. Source: I teach cybersecurity classes and frequently have guest speakers from 3-letter agencies.
that Just shifts the responsibility some where else ? So I can Just buy a Moderation tool and get free actual and legal CSAM ?
He wants it banned for two reasons: he's a pedophile and twatter makes him $$$ off child porn.
I imagine this is related to people using Grok to undress others?
Yup. This is basically Musk admitting it's a sizeable part of his revenue, he knows about it and doesn't want to lose the clientele. Ghoulish.
It's his free speech to let others see your children naked!
CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material), not child porn. Child porn implies they are complicit or that its a genre of porn. CSAM confirms that it exists exclusively to abuse children and they were abused in the making.
PORNOGRAPHY the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures, movies, or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
Pornography is not a wrong word to use, and children can never consent to sexual acts. If children are involved in pornography it is abuse material and nothing else. There is no need to make up a new word for it.
CSAM gives the same vibes as MAP instead of paedophile
For me the distinction lies in the word erotic. A basal attraction based on traits of the other. When two or more people are involved then I would expand the same criteria to all involved. And that's were I am getting stuck. The victim's are for sure not enjoying themselves and the interaction in general and dfntl arent attracted to the abuser.
My argument being: (child) sexual abuse (or rather violence) is shown to be about power and control rather than sexuality. Its just using the same media as sexual acts. So child abuse has as much to do with porn just as swimming does with being held underwater and drowned.
yes and we should normalize referring it to the abuse that it is, however, boomers reading shared fb posts don’t know what csam is and do know that “p*rn bad”
Pretty sure they know porn is bad. P*rn is potentially confusing AND stupid.
I got a jury duty summons a while ago and it stated what the defendant is being charged with and it was possession and distribution of child pornography. So that is what the federal government in the us appears to call it still.
I think you need to reread Orwell. And I'm not talking about 1984. Much of what Orwell wrote and was concerned about was the watering down and softening of language. And don't knee-jerk think of just the popular surface-level image of 1984. We're not talking government censorship or surveillance here. We're talking about the long-term watering down of the language to strip it of its impact and power.
I get that what you're saying is technically true, but we don't need our language to be perfectly technically accurate, if the cost is taking away all the power of the words.
"Child Sexual Abuse Material." Really? You just turned a 2 syllable label into a 10 syllable label. And you robbed the words of all their emotional impact and power.
"Child porn." I instantly know exactly what that is. That has a very clear and specific meaning that anyone can understand in an instant. Everyone has seen porn and calls it as such. Append the word -child in front of that, and healthy people will feel an instant sense of revulsion in their stomach. "Child porn" is a label with POWER.
"Child Sexual Abuse Material." What the fuck does that even mean? That could mean child porn. That could mean objects or tools used in the making of child porn. That could mean a newspaper article describing child porn. A book to train therapist on the effects of child abuse is, quite literally, "child sexual abuse material." All of these things are material relating to child sexual abuse. By trying to make the label as bland and inoffensive as possible, you've taken all the gravity from it.
CSAM and bloated labels like it really get under my skin. It's what Orwell warned us about.
And really, I think such things represent everything wrong with modern liberalism. A lot of liberal groups make the terrible mistake of focusing more on precise, perfectly non-offensive labeling than effective communication.
It's child porn. "Child sexual abuse material" is too weak and generic a word to be effective. Read your Orwell. He warned us about this.
I've seen this argument a bunch, and I've gotta say it's really weird to me.
I don't know of a single person who would hear "child sexual abuse" and think it's somehow harmless.
I don't know of a single person who would hear "child porn" and think it's somehow harmless.
If you're used to hearing "child porn" and someone says "child sexual abuse material" you wouldn't think it's CP, since then they'd just say CP. It must be some kind of sexual abuse that is not as bad as CP, since they would call it that otherwise.
It's even worse since "Child sexual abuse material" is so fucking long noone bothers to write it all, they just say CSAM, which has no meaning. If you don't know what CSAM means, you won't be shocked at all about the news. Meanwhile CP is most oftenly written as "child porn", mostly using CP when "child porn" was already said. CP is a non-confusing name that everyone is familiar with, that is much more descriptive, and should generate hatred in the mind of any healthy person.
The only reason CSAM is used is because of American puritanism doesn't let you say "porn", which permeates to every enterprise setting. So you can't call your software "child porn detection software" (think of the children!) you have to call it "CSAM detection software". Pair that with the obnoxious need of some people to come up with new names for everything and call you *-ist for using the "old" name. And suddenly headlines are filled with random 4 letter acronyms without meaning instead of using the appropriate words.
Irrelevant. The problem is emotional impact, not the literal meaning of the words.
Read Orwell's Politics and the English Language. I'm basically cribbing from him.
The point is not that anyone would think the label is describing something harmless. The point is that it strips words of their power. Orwell extended this to say that clear language produces clear thinking.
"Child sexual abuse material" vs "child porn."
"Age-restricted workforce implementation" vs "child labor."
"Involuntary sexual intercourse" vs "rape."
"Intentional cessation of third-party biological functions" vs "murder."
"The Twentieth Century European Jewry Demographic Crisis" vs "The Holocaust."
I can read the first version of each of those and understand their literal meaning just fine. But every syllable you add strips the power from the words. And much is lost as a consequence.
The point of communication is not only to impart the literal meaning of the words. It's also to communicate emotional impact. "CSAM" and "child porn" share the same literal meaning, but their emotional definition is entirely different. They describe the same thing, but they are not the same word.
I don't know anyone who would be confused by what "child porn" means. I think all this speech purity stuff distracts from the real harms going on. We don't need more "um akchually" energy injected into every political issue.
Hey, maybe that ruthless capitalist puppet cares.
Maybe that's his dry logic way to keep the pedos away from real children.
Maybe it's not because ... y'know, ... how it looks on the face of it.
... Or maybe it's all another "protect the children" ploy to terrorise us into giving more power to big baron daddy [corpo-]gov.
But naw... surely not all that sardonic satirical cynicism.
Maybe they care. ......................... /s .
... After reading a few comments... a figure creeps into my mind from memory...
8 million.
That's how many children we're estimated to lose to the traffickers ((or whoever else) for who knows what horrors), per year, globally.
... And I don't think either of these, the politicians or the capitalists, are going to do even one honest thing to help solve this.
... And yet at their disposal, is the means.
... The stench of these psychopaths using this crime [as vast as it is], as a mere tool to carry on with all their other crimes, is sickening. ... How many of the 8 million, are used, not just to be abused, raped, eaten, but as tools of blackmail to usurp all these pseudo-democracies at these single points of failure, "our" "representatives", as they doubtless do throughout industry and elsewhere too. No strongman saviour to save us, nor our children.
We have to face the horror and come up with better/real remedies to this unacceptable monstrous situation.
[That 8 million figure, I heard elaborated upon, how it was derived, how it was extrapolated, estimated based on the known missing children and so on, from an "ex-"cia guy on some podcast interview... which I failed to find in a timely manner to add as reference here.]
Oh gee, I simply can’t imagine why. It’s a total mystery. /headscratch
Apropos of nothing, he’s always struck me as the sort of person who ‘well actually’s with ephebophilia, and his weird breeder fetish totally squicks me out.
Ephebophilia is such an insane attempt for justification. Like, 'I'm only attracted to older children so it's fine!'
I'm guessing for 4 reasons,
I think this is a big part, but mostly because he doesn't care what Grok vomits out
There's so much real cp on x. Why bother with generating slop? He's also rich enough to rape babies without consequences. Really boggles the mind.
I have not read the bill, but if I had to guess, there's probably a provision that states in cases of generations from cloud services, the service provider can be directly punished. They're so shit at keeping Grok on the rails, they know they're fucked if the bill passes.
Again, I haven't read the bill, but this seems likely.
because high percentage of people using grok/ X are pedos themselves, also strong correlation to them being right wing.
Man would it be crazy if Elon's lawyers magically had their fingers broken?
My superior says I'm not allowed to make a joke in this comment section.
I genuinely don’t think he’s smart enough to hide anything effectively, so a warrant would prove fruitful if you could stop him from bribing anyone.
Your life and existence is nothing more than a meme to Elon.
Cause he pulls his pud to kiddie porn? Cause he thinks its easier to not fix his slop machine? Could be both.
But why does he look like a victim of an acid attack?
I would love to read more on it because I genuinely don't know how this would be enforced. This is the loli conundrum taken to AI slop. What's stopping someone from making someone appear young then slapping a "I'm actually 18" somewhere in the prompt? Like how does one enforce this? Is it just vibes "Well, this person looks under 18?"
I don't get it.
They have detectors that work fairly well. Not perfect but at least it's something that can be verified by hand afterwards and reduces the workload. I'm fairly certain X isn't running them by choice though.
There are verifiably over 18s in Australia ending up in legal trouble for posting images of themselves already. People don't have rings like a tree. The edge cases are not trivial to work around when someone becomes legal literally overnight.
(That said: personally, I'm not sure it's really moral to be using AI to be making unconsenting nudes of over 18s either...)
I think Elon just needs a few more black eyes.
Headline: OMG ELON MUSK WANTS KIDDIE PORN AAAAAAAAAA
Thank you, bluecheck fuckwads, paying his company to be noticed more, for your inaccurate clickbait shit-tier garbage. Our media landscapes' relationship with the truth wasn't tenuous enough, thanks for contributing!
Genuine question:
What's wrong with you?
I'm so fucking sick of people stretching the truth. It used to just be right-wingers and avoidable, now it's fucking everyone vomiting misinformation, that's what's wrong.
Beyond goddamn tired of the "wow, no way" turning into "that's not really what's happening" loop. I want a better internet.
But Elon Musk wants to offer a safe haven for CSAM creators.
You realize this will be how age-gating and real identification for internet access will be presented for legislation across the western world, right?
I'm certain the rules needed to be added to all prompts would be a couple of sentences at most to significantly impede this. And its not like he's done this before -- remember the "Boer genocide" incident?
INSTEAD HE COUNTERSUES