To me that kinda feels like if it was made illegal then you are basically acting as the thought police.
Edit: are people just uncomfortable talking about this or do they think downvoting is going to somehow prevent it?
Nobody wants to be a pedophile, but if you are unfortunately hardwired that way the impulses are impossible to ignore—similar to any other sexual impulse that 'healthy' adults have.
I think the goal is how to create the least amount of harm for children, and it's theoretically interesting to consider the possibility that machine generated CP could be used to ultimately end the real-life CP black market.
I'm sure this won't ever happen because nobody wants to touch this subject with a 10-foot pole; and our species tends to favor solutions that are idealistic rather than rational in many ways. But the European approach to criminal justice is something like: "humans are not perfect, and we can't fix them, so let's try to engineer solutions which make living together more pleasant". Nobody likes an icky solution like this, but the alternative is a lot of children suffering (although I'm not saying those two options are perfectly substitutable).
On the other hand, it could be a completely stupid idea outright. Just an interesting thing to think about.
that's not how this tech works.
Did you think actual guinea pigs had to be trained to do household chores for these pictures to be generated? (dailywrong.com/new-course-teaches-guinea-pigs-household-chores/)
I had a lot of fun creating pictures of llamas in space. I'm pretty sure no llamas have ever walked on the moon.
creating a llama wearing a space suit and walking on the moon is a lot harder than filling out the very limited amount of skin hidden by a swimming suit.
In that way our species is very primitive. We're trigger happy in our outrage and often unable to focus on a larger shared goal, much to our own demise.
Have people into bestiality to play in their VR worlds and see if it suffocates demand or increases demand and we see spillover into the real world. (find a jurisdiction where the above is tolerated)
Maybe Thailand can produce some data given their apparent tolerance for certain behaviors.
To think that porn reduces sexual tendencies may be true (in the short to mid term), but eventually, as the addiction intensifies, those hooked have the urge to seek more novel, more aggressive versions of it (in reel or for real).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography#Sexual_...
Took months to kick the habit, completely.
Alcoholism is pretty serious, but you wouldn't say "beer is an addiction". Same with video game addiction and many other things.
I find it a pretty prude generalization: it's a catch phrase for people who get offended by sex.
(This is tongue in cheek. I'm not upset.)
OTOH, I think the risk of CSAM from this kind of thing is overblown, because either (1) it wouldn't actually involve real children in any way, or (2) the model would have to be train on actual CSAM, which there are already laws against.
If no humans are harmed by it at any stage, then how's it any different from the CGI murders all over movies and TV? In the absence of harm, the only reason to consider it a crime is that it's disgusting. But we don't prosecute people for having sick thoughts, just for acting on them. If you take the child and abuse out of the equation, the only argument left is that seeing CSAM (artificial or not) is a "gateway drug" to commiting child abuse. If that's the case then why shouldn't we prosecute people for watching Dexter, on the grounds that they're on their way to becoming serial killers?
You say that, but created from scratch drawn material is illegal in some countries. What you've stated is a nice ideal but often doesn't match reality, and I'm on the fence as to whether that's a necessarily a bad thing in this case (I'm not sure we really know enough about sexual drive and how it interacts with the subconscious to know whether it's actually benign or has a societal cost).
Homosexuality is illegal in some countries.
The second part of my comment was more along the lines as to whether exposure to material such as this (material depicting children sexually) affects desire for material such as this, or behavior, for those that already desire it and/or have urges along those lines. I don't know the answer to that, and so an unwilling to make a blanket statement that it should or should not be allowed. There are plenty of things we restrict as a society through our government because we think it's bad for the whole. Sometimes there's little real reason for that, sometimes there is, and thus I'm on the fence until I know more.
My layman's understanding is that some aspects of sexuality are not well defined until puberty and what you're exposed to at that time, and then those are fairly fixed for life. If that's true, there are aspects to consider beyond an individual's desire, and a nuanced informed decision is worthwhile. It's possible the right answer here is not just "freedom of speech and expression" nor "protect the children", but a middle path with the most benefits and least drawbacks.
It's frustrating not to be able to know the reasons for downvotes, but it's the nature of the beast. Sometimes people think we should require explanations, but you can't change the way people are by demanding they jump through a hoop.
If you see unfairly downvoted comments, give them a corrective upvote (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Other users will hopefully do that too.
A lot of the time, that happens and then posts like this end up as uncollected garbage in the thread, complaining about something that doesn't exist anymore.
One might be a victimless crime.
The other never can be.
> To think that porn reduces sexual tendencies may be true (in the short to mid term), but eventually, as the addiction intensifies, those hooked have the urge to seek more novel, more aggressive versions of it (in reel or for real).
and if so, it's a joke about the reefer madness movie and moral panic
US did that for a few years, as well, until the Supreme Court struck it down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...
So as far as the output goes, there's already some kind of precedent in most countries. Or are you asking about the model that performs the generation?
US convicted for written obscenity just in 2013: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/05/20/court-finds-fantasy-stor...
https://www.networkworld.com/article/2276921/porn-producer-s...
It’s like lolicon, sure, you can sit there and pretend it’s a 2000 year old demon warrior… but she is still dressed, posed and drawn to mimic a small child.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a conundrum, that’s for sure. I hate the idea of the thought police. I love free speech. But in the end, I believe any material, whether it is “art” or computer generated, should be barred if it contains images that can be construed as a child in a sexual act (ancient art gets a pass?). Lolicon does not stop pedophiles from being pedophiles. Nor would this. It would simply act as a gateway and a scapegoat imho.
I'm not sure I want all of them to close access to these tools, stop providing open source capabilities, or prevent specific keywords like Dall-E does, but it's the easy solution for providers. This is why we can't have nice things (there's so many interesting, funny and beautiful things that aren't illegal or even controversial but that are blocked as side-effects of Dall-E's restrictions).
It's very hard to predict how this will shake out. I personally doubt that looking at extreme/contraband porn is a good strategy for coping with highly illegal desires but obsessive behaviors aren't something that's easy to model reliably. Considering that weaponizing false claims of predatory behavior as a coercive social/political tactic is a big thing at the moment, you probably shouldn't hold your breath hoping for any sort of consensus to emerge in the short term.