Pedos ruin everything…

  • Onihikage@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    first training anything requires having content on hand, and that means children were exploited to get it

    Does it actually require that, though? I feel like a model trained on a sufficiently diverse selection of adult humans would be able to render an approximation of CSAM even if no CSAM was actually used to create the model. If not now, then very, very soon.

    I’m not sure what to do about that, but I am sure that rather than something reasonable like what you’ve said (focusing on the distribution of such material), privacy will end up in the crosshairs, as usual. Humans have always used tools as extensions of ourselves, and these generative tools will soon be used as yet another extension to the mind, up there with search engines. I worry that the legislative responses we actually see on this will stray closer to thought-crime than I’m comfortable with.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re probably right, on both accounts.

      I’m worried about that too. While for me the jury is still out in my mind if using a tool like SD should count as art in terms of copyright (since it was trained on art that artists didn’t give permission for, especially for use in commercial cases), I think it’s a completely different question on if using it should be regulated.

      At the end of the day, these pedos can still pick up a pen and paper and draw what they want, is this not just doing the same thing but with tech? Now sharing that content can be discussed, but regulating what someone can create does feel wrong