Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter may soon go through

[BrawlMan]

But most pedos don't seek out those options and hide their inclinations from everyone. There is no one more reviled than a pedo in todays society.

Such is why that AI stuff makes their condition all the worse and should not be used at all. Have it regulated and banned it in the first place. Especially when they're trying to make AI of real life people and children to indulge and not improve. Better to talk with an actual human and professional than some pictures that will never talk back to them, there are only imagined a conversations in their head.

 

[Satinavian]

Such is why that AI stuff makes their condition all the worse and should not be used at all.

But it doesn't make their condition worse. If anything, the opposite (and sure, therapy would even be way better and certainly can't be replaced this way)

Especially when they're trying to make AI of real life people and children.

Absolutely. That was one of the things i mentioned on my first post on this topics.

One imagines that those producing child porn are not overly concerned about the welfare about the children involved.

How many times did i already mention that the production of child porn is the issue ?

Just to be clear : I never argued to lift the prohibitions against child porn. They are in place because enough people have no qualms about abusing children or at least violate their personal rights to provide it for money.

However, as long as no specific people are depicted, i see AI images exactly as problematic as explicite drawings as you can find in thousand variations on DeviantArt or whatever. Which means : Not at all, but should have an age filter.

 

[BrawlMan]

But it doesn't make their condition worse

You assume, and really don't have much off to go on other than some links that don't mean much of anything. Even if that was the case, that's still something that's not ideal nor should be pressed forward. Get these people actual legit help and stop substituting it for their own vices and depraved fantasies.

Absolutely. That was one of the things i mentioned on my first post on this topics.

Then, stop trying to have it both ways, and stop trying to convince me. The only one you're convincing right now is yourself, and no one else in the room.

Once again, if one of these a I freaks, does something to an actual kid that you knew or was around your neighborhood, you would be less willing forward to do this or approve for this. How much will it take to sacrifice for you to get the point? Or until it happens in your backyard, or somebody in your family or friends circle? That's on you. Do well to remember that and try not to blame it on some AI. Nor make pathetic excuses for the corpos, that allowed it. Once again, see the Roblox president who allowed predators on his platform for nearly two decades.

 

[Satinavian]

Once again, if one of these a I freaks, does something to an actual kid that you knew or was around your neighborhood, you would be less willing forward to do this or approve for this. How much will it take to sacrifice for you to get the point? Or until it happens in your backyard, or somebody in your family or friends circle? That's on you. Do well to remember that and try not to blame it on some AI. Nor make pathetic excuses for the corpos, that allowed it. Once again, see the Roblox president who allowed predators on his platform for nearly two decades.

I do actually know such a case. It happened before internet time.

It might not have happened, had that person had access to AI pictures.


And again, Roblox is a completely different matter because Roblox allows interactions between predators and real children.

 

[BrawlMan]

And again, Roblox is a completely different matter because Roblox allows interactions between predators and real children.

Yes. The only difference other corpos are letting it happen with the AI, yet still don't want to take responsibility, just like the Robolox president. So come off of that shit. You gonna be saying all that stuff if something happens to somebody you care about (the AI "outlet" stuff, not the Roblox stiff)? Or is it not an issue if it doesn't happen to you, nor in your backyard? You still haven't answered my question.

 

[Satinavian]

Yes. The only difference other corpos are letting it happen with the AI, yet still don't want to take responsibility, just like the Robolox president. So come off of that shit. You gonna be saying all that stuff if something happens to somebody you care about (the AI "outlet" stuff, not the Roblox stiff)? Or is it not an issue if it doesn't happen to you, nor in your backyard? You still haven't answered my question.

What exactly should happen to someone i care about ? What kind of danger or even inconvenience does some nearby pedo consuming AI images that don't depict real people have vs. a pedo who doesn't ? There is absolutely none. I really don't care to what kind of fantasy people masturbate in their own homes.

Not only not in my backyard, nowhere. No additional children get molested or raped because of AI pictures in the whole world. And if personality violations are also exclude, no harm caused by those pictures is left.

Porn does not cause sexual violence. People have tried for many decades to find such a causal link to have a justification for porn bans and similar restrictions and haven't found one. It just does not exist. Result suggest the opposite instead. So, no, some pedo in my neighborhood watching AI child porn will, if at all, be less of a danger than otherwise.

 

[BrawlMan]

What exactly should happen to someone i care about ? What kind of danger or even inconvenience does some nearby pedo consuming AI images that don't depict real people have vs. a pedo who doesn't ? There is absolutely none.

I love how you completely missed the point of my argument and the questions I pointed out. If the can't figure it out, then we have nothing left to discuss. I've already pointed out the issues and problem with this.But you just hear what you wanna hear or think, it's not as big a deal for dumb and non confident reasons. Let's say that pedo decides the phone photos are no longer enough and decides to act on their inhibitions and do that to a real child. Not a good outlook for kid(s) or whoever is taking care of them.

So fuck Twitter, fuck your reasoning on how "it's not a big deal/problem" (it's a noncommittal and fence sitting answer that doesn't solve anything), fuck the people making excuses, and fuck Musk (a well known Nazi, Apatheid, and predator supporter). You have not offered a single worthwhile thing of a solution. Goodbye, don't ever talk to any again on this subject.

 

[Satinavian]

Let's say that pedo decides the phone photos are no longer enough and decides to act on their inhibitions and do that to a real child. Not a good outlook for kid(s) or whoever is taking care of them.

As from the linked sources

- people consuming porn get less aroused by real people long term
- men consuming porn have a lower libido than others
- sexual offenders on average consumed less porn.

So, no. Your whole argument is just stupid fiction based on prejudice. Instead your attitude endangers more children. But you don't really care about the children, as long as you can feel superior, right ? Would you still feel this way if something happens to someone in your neighborhood that would have not happened, if only the perpetrator had used AI images instead of the real deal ?

I never once said that child abuse is not a big deal (or defended Musk or whatever your strange tangets are this time)

 

[Bedinsis]

I have a pragmatic point of view: if giving paedophiles access to ethically produced* child porn makes them less inclined to committing sexual violence, I'm for that. If it makes them more inclined to committing sexual violence, I'm against it.

*which I suspect would be traditional drawings.

 

[BrawlMan]

If it makes them more inclined to committing sexual violence, I'm against it.

I am fully against. There ain't two options. Especially when kids are possible risks.

which I suspect would be traditional drawings.

They're moving on to actual AI of children. It won't be drawings for a majority of them when they keep letting it happen. Once again, owner of the platform is a nazi and predator supporter. He does not care what happens anybody else. Not hard to figure out.

 

[Bedinsis]

They're moving on to actual AI of children. It won't be drawings for a majority of them when they keep letting it happen. Once again, owner of the platform is a nazi and predator supporter. He does not care what happens anybody else. Not hard to figure out.

...for the record, my commentary regarded how official policies should be formed in the treatment of paedophiles; not what features should be available on x.com.

 

[Agema]

Why should we ? Child porn, afaik for the most part, does not tend to depict violence or even forceful behavior.

Sexually abusing a child is violence: it is a physical assault on a minor.

Any form of media has the potential to normalise transgressive, dangerous and harmful thoughts and behaviours, and so pornography can in area of sex: encouraging people to connect sexual excitement with physical and/or emotional abuse, try it out, expect it from their partners, etc. If it can do this for violence, why not child abuse? It seems incredible to just assume child pornography is some sort of safe and healthy release rather than a potentially serious risk.

 

[Satinavian]

But that is just the killer games debate again.

As said, people tried to find such links and failed. Again and again. If there was any such a causality, it would have been found by now.

 

[Agema]

As said, people tried to find such links and failed. Again and again. If there was any such a causality, it would have been found by now.

What we probably can rule out is that well-informed, well-adjusted people watch some porn, get sucked in, and in a few months are committing rape, statutory rape, or abusing their partner.

But we might want to worry about individuals who have a high risk of offending. Because they are such a small minority of the population, they're incredibly hard to spot: for instance, a substantial 20% change in 1% of the total population may be all but statistically invisible. Designing a study with enough size, controlling for confounding factors, getting the right criteria etc. would also be incredibly challenging. We can consider that there are different psychologies at play - potentially there are some high risk individuals who may find pornography a release for their urges, and yet also other high risk individuals for whom it is an encouragement to offend. Fundamentally, it is poorly understood. It is thus incredibly reckless to come out with blanket statements assuming that because conventional "vanilla" pornography is associated with effects X, Y and Z overall, that this applies to all pornography in any circumstance.

The other very obvious factor is that the production of child pornography carries extremely high risk that real children will be exploited or abused, and can reasonably be banned on that principle alone. Because I can assure you that there are people out there for whom the degradation of another human being is part of the thrill, and they want the real thing not an AI mockup.

 

[Schadrach]

That's missing the fact that realistic AI generated child porn still needs to be trained on real child porn.

Does it? It's good enough at generalizing I'd think it could get there from a large enough corpus of innocent images of real children and drawn/3d modeled child porn. Like how it can create an entirely new character in the same style as Studio Ghibli because its seen enough Ghibli to have a sort of model of what their work looks like there's a large enough corpus of real photos of people out there that you should be able to essentially make a drawn/modeled image look more like a photo.

Furthermore i am not sure that AI needs real children child porn for training. It can extrapolate from adult pictures, non pornographic children pictures, clothes pictures, 3D models and paintings. But yeah, i believe very well that there is child porn in the training data - scrapers don't care.

Basically this. Since they mass scrape from the public web there's probably some somewhere in the mix, but even if it were very conscientiously removed it wouldn't make much of a difference - there's not that much of it on the public web proportionally speaking.

Child porn, afaik for the most part, does not tend to depict violence or even forceful behavior.

Part of me wants to hit this with a [CITATION NEEDED], part of me is terrified of how you'd actually get an answer to that.

The other very obvious factor is that the production of child pornography carries extremely high risk that real children will be exploited or abused, and can reasonably be banned on that principle alone.

...except the whole point is that AI generated images don't involve actual abuse happening to actual children, they are fundamentally no different than very detailed drawings. Are you arguing for a line where a sufficiently detailed fictional depiction of a crime is itself a crime? Would you even pretend to apply that to any other crime?

Because I can assure you that there are people out there for whom the degradation of another human being is part of the thrill, and they want the real thing not an AI mockup.

...and presumably those people aren't playing around with AI image generation - they're learning how to dig around those sorts of parts of the dark web to find what they want, at least until such time as they get caught.

 

[Satinavian]

But we might want to worry about individuals who have a high risk of offending. Because they are such a small minority of the population, they're incredibly hard to spot: for instance, a substantial 20% change in 1% of the total population may be all but statistically invisible. Designing a study with enough size, controlling for confounding factors, getting the right criteria etc. would also be incredibly challenging. We can consider that there are different psychologies at play - potentially there are some high risk individuals who may find pornography a release for their urges, and yet also other high risk individuals for whom it is an encouragement to offend. Fundamentally, it is poorly understood. It is thus incredibly reckless to come out with blanket statements assuming that because conventional "vanilla" pornography is associated with effects X, Y and Z overall, that this applies to all pornography in any circumstance.

Yes, there is just not enough reliable data about the actual affects of child porn. That is why we have to rely on studies of similar topics with far more accessible data and far larger sample sizes. Which is exactly why i referred to regular porn and regular sexual violence.
Sure, there is a possibility that there are unknown differences. But the regular porn studies are a significantly better starting point for any assumptions than some vague "i guess it might desensify people and thus make it easier to commit those crimes" notion based on basically nothing.

The other very obvious factor is that the production of child pornography carries extremely high risk that real children will be exploited or abused, and can reasonably be banned on that principle alone. Because I can assure you that there are people out there for whom the degradation of another human being is part of the thrill, and they want the real thing not an AI mockup.

Obviously. Which i pointed out a couple of times already.

Though with AI advances, there might not be all that many customers that actually are willing to pay money and dive into the dark web for slightly more real pics. So the already small customer base might significantly shrink and this busines model collapse and vanish.

 

[Agema]

...except the whole point is that AI generated images don't involve actual abuse happening to actual children, they are fundamentally no different than very detailed drawings. Are you arguing for a line where a sufficiently detailed fictional depiction of a crime is itself a crime? Would you even pretend to apply that to any other crime?

How do you tell the difference between AI and reality, especially as technology moves forwards? Is that a picture of a real child made sexually explicit by AI? What if a sexually explicit picture of a real child is altered to look like AI? And so on. There is a case that with sufficient risk of harm, a wider ban is reasonable.

There are precedents for this. Many government regulations create limits for certain things (e.g. pollution), without necessarily needing to demonstrate that exceeding a limit would create harm to any specific individual. Many countries ban guns because of the risk that people might use them to kill others, and others ask whether it is reasonable to stop people owning gun just because a minority will use them to cause harm. Guns are an interesting sort of borderline territory for where society tends to tolerate restrictions on people's freedoms.

So for instance, is it the contention of anyone here that child pornography is equally or more vital to fundamental, individual freedoms than gun ownership?

I'm aware there's lots of grey area likely. But broadly, I think courts often do a pretty good job of settling on a reasonable boundary, so for instance broadly I think they could understand the difference between sexualised images of children designed for sexual titillation, and sexualised images of children designed for other artistic or documentary purposes.

...and presumably those people aren't playing around with AI image generation - they're learning how to dig around those sorts of parts of the dark web to find what they want, at least until such time as they get caught.

I don't agree with this, I think they potentially just need to know there's a real person in there somewhere. Like some fit real people's faces onto porn models, or have used AI to "nudify" (usually) women as a form of attacking and humiliating them.

 

[Satinavian]

I don't agree with this, I think they potentially just need to know there's a real person in there somewhere. Like some fit real people's faces onto porn models, or have used AI to "nudify" (usually) women as a form of attacking and humiliating them.

We should probably just wait a bit. It is possible that AI CP will crash the traditional CP market, which would be nice. Until this happens, the current laws forbidding all CP are fine.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Well, does Japan have more or less children sexual assaults due to anime sexualizing underage characters? I think that would be the answer right there.

 

[Chimpzy]

What happened after Tesla opened a diner in Los Angeles?

The novelty of eating at a diner owned by the richest person in the world seems to have worn off in just a few months

www.theguardian.com

Well, ignoring the Musk/Tesla connection, I suppose that's what happens when you open an advertisement for cars that just so happens to serve mediocre overpriced food in a city that offers plenty options both better and cheaper.