• sugartits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Criminalizing the creation, possession, or viewing of entirely artificial artwork is beyond unethical; it’s extraordinarily evil.

    No it isn’t.

    I don’t care if you find someone’s artwork gross, troubling, distasteful, immoral, etc… that’s art.

    No, it’s child porn.

    Careful, any time I point this out, the fascists come out of the woodwork to call me a pedo.

    Can’t imagine why.

    You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?

    So it’s wrong for it to be based on one child, but according to you the AI “art” (as you keep calling it) is okay as long as there are thousands of victims instead?

    So you’re cool with images of 6 year olds being penetrated by a 40 year old as long as “tHe Ai DrEw iT sO nObOdY gOt HuRt”? I guess you could just set it as your desktop and phone wallpaper and everything would be fine. Let me know how that works out for you.

    That’s some stunning mental gymnastics right there.

      • sugartits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.

        It does matter how myself and wider society view disgusting content. It matters a lot. And society absolutely has a say of it’s acceptance or otherwise to such content. You saying otherwise is absurd.

        In the same way that I can’t and shouldn’t write something incrediblely racist and pretend it’s ‘art’. Even if AI made it.

        Attempting to give AI child porn a pass, as you are doing for some baffling reason, absolutely will create further harm further down the line.

    • Elivey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I know you know this, but you are not crazy. I’m astonished you are being down voted so hard. The pedo apology is so strong it’s making me not want to use Lemmy. This thread is worse than reddit.

      Terrifying.

      • sugartits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Indeed, it’s making me want to go back to Reddit.

        I left when the API price changes kicked in and at first Lemmy was alright, then the extremists turned up and the echo chamber in here is so ridiculous that there just isn’t much point in being here.

        Not just the pedo apologists (next step will be AI CP actually being posted here and people defending it as “art”), but also seeing that YouTube is trying to stop freeloaders leeching from it and somehow that’s evil literally every single day and seeing how evil cars are literally every single day and seeing how Linux is the next coming of Jesus literally every single day (and I say that as a 20+ year Linux user) is incredibly tedious.

        Sure, this existed on Reddit as well, but at least there was actually other content to dilute it and for the most part people were reasonable instead of the rabid extremism I’m seeing every day here. There is no way in hell I would have seen the up/downvote ratio like I’m seeing in this pedo apologist conversation on Reddit.

        Maybe it’s time to go back.

        Pity. Oh well.

    • papertowels@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?

      Can you share a source? Just like how people utilize the internet to distribute CP, there are undoubtedly circles where people are using ml for CP. However my understanding is that by and large, popular models are not intentionally trained on any.

      • sugartits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I am categorically not researching that.

        Put it this way…

        The pedofiles that are smart enough to not get caught and use technology like tor and encrypt everything and can figure out how to use stable diffusion will be the pedofiles that have custom models trained on real children.

        And if you and me consider the possibility in a casual conversation online, they have also considered the possibility, heavily researched and implemented it if it’s at all possible. And they know how to not get caught.

        But it’s okay, it’s “art” after all and we can’t ban art because that’s evil… Right… Right?

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          …okay, seeing as you haven’t actually done any research, yet arrived at a conclusion, a conversation about this is going to be difficult.

          Let’s get more specific so we can have an actual conversation. When you say “the AI”, what do you mean? Dall-e, midjourney, or some guy training and using their own model on a local computer?

          Are you familiar with large models being able to compose concepts they’ve seen, to produce something not found in its training data?

          • sugartits@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            What on earth makes you think I wish to have an extended conversation about this?

            Child porn is not art. Even if AI made it.

            Banning child porn is not immoral or evil.

            Simple as that.

            If you cannot accept that basic premise then I have nothing to say to you.

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              I have said literally nothing about ethics.

              You used a technical assertion in your argument. Out of curiosity, I wanted to learn more and asked you for sources.

              You can neither prove nor are you capable of discussing said technical assertion. I am now going to leave the conversation. Seeing as you can’t prove or even discuss it, I’d hope you avoid using it in the future, or at least learn more about it.