Well, this just got darker.
Ain’t that what are the tools there for. I mean I don’t like cp and I don’t want to engage in way with people who like it. But I use those llms to describe fantasies that I wouldn’t even talk about with other humans.
As long as they don’t do it on real humans nobody is hurt.
The problem with AI generated CP is that if they’re legal, it opens a new line of defense for actual CP. You would need to prove the content is not AI to convince real abusers. This is why it can’t be made legal, it needs to be prosecuted like real CP to be sure to convict actual abusers.
This is an incredibly itchy and complicated theme. So I will try not go go really further into it.
But prosecute what is essentially a work of fiction seems bad.
This it not even a topic new to the AI. CP has been wildly represented in both written and graphical media. And the consensus in most free countries is not to prosecute those as they are a work of fiction.
I cannot think why an AI written CP fiction is different from human written CP fiction.
I suppose “AI big bad” justify it for some. But for me there should be a logical explanation behind if we would began to prosecute works of fiction why some will be prosecuted and why other will not. Specially when the one that’s being prosecuted is just regurgitating the human written stories about CP that are not being prosecuted nowadays.
I essentially think that a work of fiction should never be prosecuted to begin with, no matter the topic. And I also think that an AI writing about CP is no worse than an actual human doing the same thing.
I’m unfamiliar with the exact situation here, but when it comes to generative AI as I understand it, CP image output also means CP images in the training data.
That may not strictly be true, but it is certainly worth investigating at minimum.
Common misconception. AI can take an image of a child and an image of a naked woman and produce an image of a naked child (who does not resemble either the child or the woman). There’s no need for actual CP in the dataset.
This isn’t surprising, it’s inevitable.
If you folks knew how common pedophilic fantasies are amongst the general public, you would be shocked. Just look to cultures like Japan and Russia that don’t strongly condemn such things, and you’ll find it’s about 15% of the population. It’s only less in the West because of the near homicidal stigma attached to it that makes people vigorously hide that part of themselves.
Fortunately, this also shows that the vast majority of those people don’t offend.
We also tend to define pedophilia as “anything sexual involving a minor”, while reacting to it as if it means “violent rape of a toddler”, so no shit, we sexualize youth all the time, the 18 year mark is a legal and social formality, not a hard limit on human attraction. Adults will find themselves attracted to teens, and they won’t reveal that because who the fuck ever would?
If anything, the issue isn’t that people have these attractions and fantasies, it is that some portion of those people can’t separate fantasy from reality and are willing to hurt a child to get what they want, or they are sociopaths that consume child porn without feeling disgust for witnessing horrific child abuse.
to cultures like Japan and Russia that don’t strongly condemn such things
As someone from Russia - what?
Unless you mean being attracted to post-puberty, but pre-legal girls. That, ahem, makes sense biologically.
Girls of that age are sometimes kinda cruel to boys, though, so my personal teenage years trauma prevents me from dreaming of them. But if not for it, I think I would.
Toddlers are a completely different issue.
As someone from Russia - what?
Dude… you’re one of them. Amazing to see this comment come full circle.
Removed by mod
There is this thing that I feel is most prevalent in the USA, to call any attraction to a girl under the age of 18 pedophilia. Because that’s the age to star in porn. The term should truly be used for attraction to children. I think it’s an extension of the “pedo panic” where every man is assumed for some reason to be a child rapist now.
As such almost every young man could at some point be caught as a “pedophile”- 17 year olds sneak into clubs all the time, for example. 20 year old hooked up with one? Now he is considered a pedophile even if the actual age of consent is lower.
Meanwhile the porn industry glorifies “barely 18” girls as something highly desirable. It’s a little messed up to say the least.
Actual pedos who are into kids should be put in mental institutions. But I would strongly suspect that 15% stated just includes honest young men and creepy old men, none of which are truly pedophiles. That number is way too high.
As such almost every young man could at some point
Something is wrong with your stats. “Almost every” would be above 97%. Or if by “could” you mean it happening in a perfectly normal situation - yes.
OK, I don’t really like talking about that age and that subject. Just batch-commenting everything.
Id say that 97% of all 18 year olds has had attraction to 17 year olds is not a weird number, unless asexuality is more common than I thought
Attraction yeah, I understood it as the act requiring consent from that text.
Attraction - it’d be virtually everyone I guess in one way or another. Asexuality is not the same as complete lack of romantic interest or even inability to enjoy physical parts.
It’s racism, due to his political alignment he can’t go after black people but Russians are fair game.
This is a weird one, because while fantasy is fantasy, and doesn’t necessarily indicate an intention to act on anything, these people were dumb enough to share these specific fantasies with some random AI porn site. That’s got to be an indicator of poor impulse control, right?
That alone should probably warrant immediate FBI background checks, or whatever relevant agencies have jurisdiction for these types of criminal investigations in each user’s locality.
Of course, I am saying it’s without actually having read any of the chats. So it’s possible my opinion would change from “this should be investigated”, to summary executions and burn the bodies for good measure… but no way I’m reading those fucking chats.
Just to be clear, are you saying that people should be investigated by the police for fictional stories that they read?
I mean, if those stories were made by their prompts and about having sex with children then maybe 🤷♂️
I know we need to draw a line about what police can do with that sort of info so it’s not abused, but these people are still sick fucks.
Now that devices are starting to have built in features with AI automatically combing through all information on them, the idea of this sort of stuff being logged in the first place is concerning.
For instance, should someone prompting an AI to describe them beating up and torturing their boss be flagged for “potentially violent tendencies”? Who decides the “limit” where “privacy” no longer applies and stuff should be flagged, logged and sent off to authorities?
As I see it, the real issue is people being hurt, not text or fictive materials, however sickening they might be.
If the resources invested in spying on people and making databases were instead directed towards funding robust and publicly available psychiatric care I expect that’d be more efficient.
I actually don’t think this is shocking or something that needs to be “investigated.” Other than the sketchy website that doesn’t secure user’s data, that is.
Actual child abuse / grooming happens on social media, chat services, and local churches. Not in a one on one between a user and a llm.
pedophiles are bad, if you think otherwise you’re pedophile enabling scum and are just as guilty as they are.
edit: I’ll wear the down votes like a badge of honor if it means pedophiles that train their grooming habits against AI are branded as pedophiles.
I missed the original comment and this discussion now makes no sense. Why would you edit the content of your comment when you don’t care about the points or the outrage?
I forget the details, but the long and short of it was that they were advocating for anyone found sending these prompts to an AI being put on an FBI watch list, along with something along the lines of “you’d want to know if your neighbor was doing this.” Then came at least three edits about how they didn’t care about downvotes.
See, imo this is the exact kind of thinking that makes pedophilia dangerous. Most people would agree that being attracted to children is a mental illness. Most people would agree that mental illnesses should be treated by a knowledgeable professional. But pedophilia is so stigmatized that someone even admitting they have a problem, one I very much doubt most of them want to have, has people calling for them to be drawn and quartered, regardless of if they’ve ever actually hurt anyone.
Do I like that there’s art and writing of people having fantasies about children? No, of course not. But making it impossible for people to have a safe outlet, to even talk about it with a medical professional for fear of imprisonment, death threats, or worse, makes it so these people can’t even get the help they need. It’s like teaching abstinence only sex ed. You’re trying to get people to stop having fantasies by burying them, but it only exacerbates the issue.
Edit: lol got your downvote less than five minutes in and the whole comment edited to just say “pedophiles bad.” I guess I, as you like to put it, “hit a nerve.”
I personally think that pedophilia is genetic, or a chemical brain imbalance or something. There has to be something that would cause someone to do something they know that it they get caught, their life is over.
It’s like Louie CK’s joke from his SNL appearance. To paraphrase “I love Mounds bars, but if you told me I would be thrown in jail and raped or killed, I wouldn’t eat one ever again”
I personally think that pedophilia is genetic, or a chemical brain imbalance or something.
Any evidence of that, or just playing armchair scientist?
It seems a lot more likely that humans don’t have control over their attractions in general. Human sexuality has never been linked to specific genetics or brain chemistry, so maybe put the calipers away.
You don’t choose to be straight, you don’t choose to be gay. You don’t choose to like big boobs or little boobs. You don’t choose whether or not to be attracted to muscles. You literally don’t get to choose “your type”. You have your own set of attractions that you largely discover about yourself, rather than decide for yourself.
Pedophilia is likely no different. The only difference in practice is that most other types of interpersonal attraction can be ethically fulfilled between consenting adults. Pedophilia, by definition, cannot, as it involves someone who cannot ethically consent.
We need to start looking at people with inappropriate attractions as people who carry a burden.
You don’t choose to be straight, you don’t choose to be gay
I was going to add that to my argument, but i felt that it would get twisted into someone saying that gay people are pedophiles. I didn’t feel like arguing that point.
deleted by creator
As a fiction writer, I do research on espionage, sabotage and even methods of assassination all the time. But I’m not going to make a salted bomb and nuke Jerusalem even though that is an entirely viable evil plot that may even create a net negative death toll.
True poisoners, as Agatha Christie notes, use thallium, not arsenic nor cyanide (though ricin is good if you can get it.) Thallium assassins are also self-regulating, like demolitions experts, killing off those insufficiently careful when handling the stuff.
Modern police are lazy until enough of a stink is made to find a culprit for a specific incident, which is why modern assassins targeting VIPs will find a self-radicalized desperado and point them toward the target. This is the sort of thing FBI is looking for in the investigations of Crooks and Routh. They are likely just blue suicides (or green suicides in this case) but finding a operative pointing them towards Trump would indicate an actual plot. But even if those tracks are found, it would unlikely lead to a specific identity.
I know about this not just to write fiction, but also to understand how things happen, how our fall into one party autocracy and societal collapse plays out. And yes, it means I do a lot of web searches that might excite an onlooking behavioral research agent. Sadly, they’d find I’m yet another boring false positive, though if the nation does succumb to autocracy, I’d certainly write for the resistance. FBI may not care so much about that.
We often look up creepy things just so see if we can, and we do that a lot more than because we’re eager to build a bomb or fast-track our inheritance.
a salted bomb and nuke Jerusalem even though that is an entirely viable evil plot that may even create a net negative death toll.
Wait, how would a nuke with extra radiation fallout create a net negative death toll?
The saltiness comes from all the jizz.
Paywall. That site frankly does not even look legit and looking at the plethora of other AI sites I don’t know who would use this one. It’s not even displaying correctly and has like 0 information on anything. If I were to stumble upon that site I’d think it is shady as hell.
There are better ways to assess the legitimacy of a media outlet than critiquing its web design. The Wikipedia page might be a good start.
I don’t like the loginwall, but it doesn’t require payment.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension.
I also think the issue was with your comment. It could’ve been written a bit more clearly
I don’t know how my comment is unclear. Unless 404 is an AI site somehow, which I wouldn’t even know about.
Paywall. That site frankly does not even look legit and looking at the plethora of other AI sites I don’t know who would use this one. It’s not even displaying correctly and has like 0 information on anything. If I were to stumble upon that site I’d think it is shady as hell.
The “Paywall” followed by “That site” makes most people think (me included) that you’re talking about the news outlet, 404media, not the AI site mentioned. Writing something like this:
Paywall. The AI site they mention does not even look legit (…)
Wouldn’t leave such a wide margin for misinterpretation
No. “Paywall” followed by a period, also known as “full stop”, followed by a line break / new paragraph (which you conveniently removed), which all indicate a separation, followed by comparing the AI site to “other AI sites”. You have to be willfully obtuse to assume that when I talk about AI sites I’m referring to the news site there.
