US man used AI to generate 13,000 child sexual abuse pictures, FBI alleges - eviltoast
Steven Anderegg allegedly used the Stable Diffusion AI model to generate photos; if convicted, he could face up to 70 years in prison

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/15863526

Steven Anderegg allegedly used the Stable Diffusion AI model to generate photos; if convicted, he could face up to 70 years in prison

  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pubEnglish
    221·
    6 months ago

    Sensitive topic - obviously.

    However these guard rail laws, and “won’t someone think about the children” cases are a reeeeally easy way for the government to remove more power from the people.

    However, I believe if handled correctly, banning this sort of thing is absolutely necessary to combat the mental illness that is pedophilia.

    • laughterlaughter@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      6 months ago

      I don’t condone child sexual abuse, and I’m definitely not a pedo (gosh, I can’t believe I have to state this.)

      But how does banning AI generated material help combating a mental illness? The mental illness will still be there, with or without images…

      • Leg@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        6 months ago

        There’s something to be said about making it as difficult as possible to enable the behavior. Though that does run the risk of a particularly frustrated individual doing something despicable to an actual child. I don’t exactly have the data on how all this plays out, and frankly I don’t want to be the one to look into it. Society isn’t particularly equipped to handle an issue like this though, focusing on stigma alone to kinda try to shove it under the rug.

        • laughterlaughter@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 months ago

          Your second sentence is exactly what I was thinking of. The big issue with pedophilia is the fact that kids can be easily manipulated (or forced!) to do heinous acts. Otherwise, what’s the difference with regular porn and topics about prisoners, slavery, necrophilia, etc? Would we say that people who consume rape fantasy porn will go out and rape? If a dude who is sexually attracted to women is not raping women left and right every day all year round, you know, because he knows it’s wrong, if we’re not labeling every heterosexual male as creeps, then why would this be different with other kinds of attractions?

          But anyway. I’m not saying anything that hasn’t been discussed in the past (I’m sure.) I’m just glad I don’t have that condition (or anything similar, like attracted to volcanoes), otherwise life would definitely suck.

      • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pubEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        Mainly it’s a problem of enabling the problem as others have mentioned.

        It’s not a solution, per se. It doesn’t solve something specifically- but it doesn’t have to be. It’s about making it less accessible, harsher consequences, and so on to put more pressure on not continuing to participate in the activity. Ultimately it boils down to mental health and trauma. Pedophilia is a paraphilic disorder at the end of the day.

        • laughterlaughter@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          6 months ago

          We don’t disagree. But this argument is different from the OP from what you stated earlier. Your current argument is “these images are horrible. Let’s wipe them out of the face of Earth because they’re wrong.”

          But OP (Edit: oops, OP is you!) originally said “not having access to these images will help people ‘cure’ their paraphilia.” I don’t think that has any scientific basis, though I’ll be happy to stand corrected.

          Edit: clarification.

          • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pubEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            I am the original commentator, unless you’re referring to the poster who just posted a quote and the link to the article

            I’m not sure where you’re drawing these argument conclusions from and it’s bordering on muddying the water.

            • laughterlaughter@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              6 months ago

              Sorry, yes, I was referring to what you originally said (I thought it was another commenter.)

              Well, the same thing I can say about your argument conclusions and the same “muddying the water” opinion.

              Your stance is “banning this X type of content will help cure Y,” and I’d like to see the science backing this up. That is all. I’m not defending pedophilia if that’s what you’re implying with “muddying the waters.” It’s just that I’m all for evidence, even if the evidence makes us (yes, me included) uncomfortable.

              • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pubEnglish
                22·
                6 months ago

                I’ve literally just said what I meant and you’re ignoring it. I explicitly said that it’s about making it harder to participate the behavior. I even said it’s not a cure.

                Obvious troll. Blocked. See ya never edge lord

            • laughterlaughter@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              6 months ago

              I know the difference.

              I’ve used “OP” to refer to a parent poster (or commenter) for decades, on Slashdot, Digg, Reddit and now here. I won’t change it unless there’s a major shift in the community.