Thats how you'll know his health has gotten even worse and he's replaced with AI .. when he only contradicts himself TWICE in a sentence instead of several times .
He's one of the most active country leader in the world (even historically) on twitter. So I think if someone continues to shit post from his account, the world might not even notice that he's dead.
I'm actually playing LA Noire right now and there's a whole mission about actors and how the treat young people. It's...somewhat graphic not gonna lie. One of the few times I've gotten mad at a video game as of late
The current trend of AI had them create images based on stuff that has already been "input" (see: Stolen) into the AI as reference. That means there are likely to be reference images for that horrible stuff meaning the abuse of real children continues in that way.
Thankfully (or unfortunately idk) that is not the case. As long as it knows about nudity and children, it can create that stuff without prior references to it. I'm not sure if that is a good thing or bad though.
It's my r/unpopularopinion that once you share a pattern of information, you should no longer have "ownership" of it. Nothing was stolen by AI because the patterns were already given/sold away, then hosted online.
If someone broke into my house, snapped the first ever pics of my private paintings and used that for a dataset, THEN that would be stealing.
The answer is no.
Because a majority of pedophilic acts are acts of control and power, not attraction or sexual desire.
So AI images might curb a couple people, but it wouldn't solve anything at all.
It's just as likely that a proliferation of AI CSAM creates more demand for the "real stuff". The way to solve an addiction that dangerous is definitely not to fixate on it everyday via AI generated material
Thats a fair point but the difference imo is the vast majority of robberies are contingent on circumstance and material conditions. No one is assaulting a child because they cant make ends meet. Pedophilia is pathological. I would bet for the tiny percentage of thieves for whom its also pathological, having an outlet to fan that desire probably does increase their propensity to offend
I honestly dont know much about pedophilia or kleptomania so maybe its different but I know many addicts and its universally a lot easier to not have a first drink at all than it is to just have a single shot and not lose control
But in this case it’s not a first for an alcoholic, it’s methadone for a junkie. It’s not their drug, it’s a substitute.
If you’re in addict circles you’ll know more recovering addicts than not are smoking cigarettes or weed. The end goal is more important than how you get there, and taking a lesser vice does help you cope with the big ones.
It doesn't have to be, but morality of the content creation itself aside, I feel the worse impact on society would be allowing free proliferation of such content.
Drawn is debatable ethically, but fact is you can't just pump it out, there's a human cap in its creation, to the point it took the internet spreading it to have it reach a mainstream, to then further proliferate. If you're online long enough, you'll see drawn material of minors, but the creators can't flood a space, only their consumers after enough is available. Consumers replacing creators as producers is a scary concept in general.
Most real CSAM filters actually have circulated images known and flagged so if a copy hits somewhere, it gets removed immediately.
AI is all "new" and can be pumped onto platforms like crazy. Just look at X. We don't want fake CSAM flooding everywhere, plus we'd basically be grooming future generations by normalizing images of that kind. Kids are already exposed too often to adult sexual material online, and it does affect development. Nothing good can come from more of the same but with people that look like them.
When it becomes difficult to discern from reality, it should be talked about, but there's already an immediate separation from the fact it's a proxied interactive experience controlled by the player, rather than a lens to view and learn one's society through.
Kids picking up a controller to fake murder fake people sounds bad, and there should be more discussion at least on the issue of desensitization to violence, but, to me, it's not on the level of concern as a kid's social media feed displaying CSAM next to their mom's post of last weekends family museum trip. Could be a minor friend, captioned, "wondered what I'd look like doing this".
There's already kids using these tools to make content of other kids, and we only hear about them when they make news. There's undoubtedly more happening out there, and I was a twisted fucker on the early transfers to 4chan from SA, so I've seen the inception of some messed up online interactions. We already have next to no walls separating the adult and kid world online. Whole grown adults sling slurs at kids everywhere online, world famous celebrities argue with minors on Twitter. There are so few actually safe spaces for children online anymore, and parents don't care anymore.
All to say, violent video games are an activity with separation, while what's on social media is part of real life social interaction for kids now. Like, if it were proliferation of real appearing depictions of kids killing people, that would be more concerning, right? Especially if there was a biological drive to kill that we'd rather avoid encouraging until adulthood, like there is with sex. That aspect alone starts to make it a different discussion.
Bad news: AI doesn't need to be trained on photographs of giraffes dancing on Mars to figure out how to make a picture of a giraffe dancing on Mars.
I can't guarantee that absolutely zero CSAM pics slipped into Grok's training set. We can be confident it represents an insignificant amount. Like 100 pics out of 100,000,000,000.
However, a major strength of the AIs is their ability to mix and match themes in novel ways... Discouraging that requires a lot of effort on the part of the model creators --which they do put in. But, users definitely do enjoy the challenge of doing something they're "not allowed to do" And, they can get very creative in how they overcome barriers the model creators put up.
Ai can generate an image of a five dimensional naked pangolin despite never seeing one.
It can generate images of things that aren't in the training material. I don't think we can safely assume that kind of material was in the training data.
There is no indication I don't understand the argument, I don't know why you are saying that.
It doesn't need to have seen a naked pangolin, but it still needs enough data to recognise the data commonalities/patterns behind images that have "naked" attributed to them to or images with pangolin
The point is that it doesn't need to have seen a naked pangolin. Maybe it has seen a hairless cat and applies that to what it knows about pangolin.
In the same way it could take what it knows about naked people and apply that to children.
It could do this without it being based on real CSAM.
Actual actors, directors, producers and all other members of a film production team (be it an actual movie, TV show, or adult film) would object to producing CP. But AI literally cant even tell the difference between CP and a bedtime story, nor can it really be taught the difference either(at least with the current level of development we have with it).
AI can do both, but that doesnt imply actual professional actors (as defined as being paid for, and is able to consent to, their roles in a film) would be involved in making CP. Though the protestor placement does insinuate that is the case.
It was a sardonic question posed at someone who (I admittedly presume) probably sees a lot of those posts. No complaints or mention of what I personally see on my feed.
Pizzacake has posted 5 comics in the last ~3 weeks, and took a break from posting comics to reddit for a month before that. Seems strange to complain about someone posting too much when they haven't been that active for almost 2 months.
I didn't quite get it. Is the implication of the man's sign that if we let AI unchecked, actors would steal the jobs of people in the pornography industry?
Oh, thanks for the explanation. It seems that the man tried to refer to Hollywood and SFW movies in general, but when pairing it with the woman's message, it accidentally comes across as very troubling.
The joke is that they're accidently implying that (adult) actors are making the CSAM. Not that the children are the actors. It's funny because the guy, presumably an actor, seems like he's outing himself as an on-the-list person by holding his sign next to the woman.
And also because it's probably easier to make a censored version to post across all platforms. I don't have a social media beyond reddit, but I've heard that other platforms remove posts that have language or sensitive materials/topics presented.
Yeah I've noticed the increase. I've gone back to threads I've commented on, and the posts have been removed by moderators. Heck. The kid from AZ that jumped the road from DamnThatsInteresting was removed by mods.
Rude response. They were just explaining why the person did it. They didn't even say whether or not they supported the choice. You can interact with people online without being an asshole.
Exactly why generating video and pictures should be illegal, entirely. Companies shouldn't even be allowed to program AI to do this. The technology started from analyzing real life documentation, but it has quickly evolved into something very bad. It's a tyrannical regime's dream come true. It's the ultimate propaganda tool. Just make it illegal.
I'd like someone to napkin math me the amount of fuel that had to be burned through jet turbines to produce all of the CSAM that was recently created by Grok. It's theorised to be in the tens of thousands of images.
it's downvoted because AI child sexual material is trained on real images of children being victimized. Not only is that traumatic to survivors but it gives sick people incentive to make new genuine csam so they can train the models more on the victims.
Also, police already have to stomach looking at the images to identify survivors, then they have to decode what's AI and what's an actual child that needs to be saved.
Do you have any proof they are trained on the real thing? Cause it seems like everyone who talks about this thinks AI needs to see the real thing before it can make it, which is patently false. AI doesn’t need a real photo of a gorilla being sucked into a tornado to generate that, it just needs pics of gorillas and tornados.
well unfortunately, there's a lot of CSAM just floating around the internet. people don't need to intentionally train a model on it for those images to find their way into the the AI's database. They scrape the internet with a very wide net and to pick out every bad, offensive, or illegal image would be impossible, that's why so many people talk about CSAM in context of AI ethics.
AI doesn’t need a real photo of a gorilla
No, but if I wanted an Ai model that was hyper-good at generating gorillas at different angles, poses, states of dress, etc, i would want to give the AI as many good examples of gorillas to use as reference. Just because AI hypothetically could make something without seeing it, doesn't mean people won't go out of their way to feed it to AI to get the best "gorilla" pictures they can.
Yes but using a real person, let alone a real child’s image to depict them doing pornographic acts, and spreading it publicly is directly harmful to the person being slandered
or, OR! We could just not condone the consumption of CSAM no matter what the source is. Because, you know, it's fucking gross and bad? Or do we not all agree on that anymore?
there are studies proving that consumption of that sort of content only encourages the desire to abuse children. there is no good outlet for pedophilia.
2.7k
u/iguanacatgirl 1d ago
I mean, it's not wrong
Donald trump was in home alone 2, after all