Comment on If AI spits out stuff it's been trained on
Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 week agoThe only way to generate CSAM is by abusing children and taking pictures/videos of it.
Society has decided otherwise, as I wrote, you can’t have your own facts. You might as well claim that in traffic red means go, because you have your own interpretation of how traffic lights should work.
Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Please tell me what own fact/definitions I’m spreading here. To me it seems like it’s you whose taking a self-explainatory, narrow definition and stretching the meaning of it.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Hi there, I’m a random passerby listening in on your argument!
You both make great points, and I’m not sure if there’s a misunderstanding here, because I don’t see why this is still going back and forth.
I agree with Free, that if an AI creates an image of CSAM, that there is no child being abused and that it is not anywhere near the same level of evil as actual photographs of CSAM. Different people will have different opinions on that, and that’s fine, it’s a topic that deserves debate.
Other person, is saying that your personal stance on the topic doesn’t really matter if the law has deemed it so. Which is also correct. When we talk about drugs, some people do not consider cannabis to be “a drug”, others consider caffeine and sugar to be drugs, but no matter where you stand, there IS a defined list of what you can get arrested for, and no matter how I try to spin the “secret medicinal advantages of meth” (that’s a joke, there are none.) it’s not going to keep me out of prison.
You’re both making valid arguments that don’t necessarily conflict with each other.
Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 1 week ago
For me, this was at no point about the morality of it. I’ve been strictly talking about the definition of terms. While laws often prohibit both CSAM and depictions of it, there’s still a difference between the two. CSAM is effectively synonymous with “evidence of crime” If it’s AI generated, photoshopped, drawn or what ever, then there has not been a crime and thus the content doesn’t count as evidence of it. Abuse material literally means what it says; it’s video/audio/picture content of the event itself. It’s illegal because producing it without harming children is impossible.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Right. I get you, and I agree, and I don’t think Buffalox was contradicting you by essentially saying “even if they technically aren’t the same, your government may still count it as the same.”