There seems to be continued demand for CSAM-related LLM chats. Apart from being a very depressing reflection of humanity, I wonder if we're simply seeing humanity as it is, or if the availability of CSAM pulls people into such crimes?
Uncensored models are also required for normal adult erotic fiction and even to discuss many sexual topics, because the public models are so hypersensitive on this topic. They're mirroring American sensibilities which can be annoying here in Europe where we a are a lot more open about consensual adult sexuality.
The problem is that AI bots are so heavily censored, and uncensoring them means removing all protections. By seeking the slighter things past the barrier, you will open it up to all kinds of things.
But in my opinion the models are currently really too censored to be useful right now. For example, I partake in BDSM and sex-positive parties. All very consensual and adults-only stuff (you'd be surprised how big a thing consent is in BDSM) and all very legal and above board. I'm in a lot of chatgroups about these things but don't have time to monitor them, so I use a LLM to summarise them (a local one for privacy reasons, not just my own but the other group participants' as well obviously). But if I try to use a normal uncensored model like llama for it, it will immediately close up and complain about 'explicit' content. This is just BS. There should be models which are more open like this.
I use an uncensored version of llama now which works great. And it's never recommending genocide, homicide or suicide. Because I'm not interested in those things and don't ask for it. I'm sure it can tell me but I don't want to know. Most of the people who need uncensored models will have these kind of usecases. Calling out the one extreme idiot is just sensationalism.
It should really be possible to customise models' censorship rather than going for the strictest common denominator. If there are just a few public models that can create some normal adult smut incorporating all sexual practices that are legal, 99% of those current customers of these hacked-cloud-hosted chatbots will be very happy with that. And the mainstream AI industry will make more money. The problem is that they don't want to be associated with it which is aligned with American morale but not European. Sex is a normal part of life here (and the SexTech industry is growing rapidly).
Now, I understand why they're doing this, but they should give people an option to opt out of the walled garden and accept the risks involved rather than treat everyone like clueless idiots, as you said in your last sentence. Unfortunately, this probably won't happen since that kind of thing scares investor money off really fast.
Of course. They recognize and expect the effects of the condition in users which they first seek to create.
This was always a pretense- people are concerned about the sci-fi trope of AI destroying the world, so why not re-use that name to justify inserting political bullshit into your queries because fuck you, that's why?
These companies are just trying to make a trillion dollars. It will be hard to make a trillion dollars if your product is associated with sexual deviancy stuff (and by "deviance" i mean literally anything - like Disney's definition of deviancy). So they do anything they can to make it hard to do deviancy and easy to give them a trillion dollars, like automating away a huge portion of call center work or something like that.
Obviously from where people sit, embroiled in the political "debates" of our age, it's easy to assign political motivations to it. But really they just want people to stop doing shit that isn't giving them a trillion dollars because it's just distraction/cost center for them to manage the PR shit of someone who made a lewd chatbot and it got on fox news.
PS: I wouldn't be surprised those fox news watchers watch the hardest porn and yet would condemn a chatbot for mentioning a nipple :P
I'm glad that content filters are now good enough to filter porn reliably. If I don't look for it, I rarely find porn nowadays.
It's funny, no matter where I am, it's always the same hot girls in my area wanting to chat with me! They must follow me around.
It's weird how the meaning of the word "safety" has been captured and changed by these guys. Safety has, in the past, usually been about physical safety and avoiding danger: Hard hats, seat belts, safety glasses, traffic rules, and so on. Now, somehow the term has lost the "danger avoidance" part, and it's simply turned into a euphemism for censorship: Our AI model is limited for reasons of "safety." And companies who have "content safety" teams. Safety is no longer about protection from danger, but about puritanism and profit-protection.
Turning filtering off completely requires 'approval' though I see. I wonder how sexual the 'high' setting can get. Maybe I'll try it out some time.
So I'm not fully convinced that a LLM that generates CSAM text, even if it was interactive, would be in any way restricted by law. Image generation is, of course, a little different.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-man-sentenced-40-years-...
CSAM is extremely illegal because making it is a crime against a child. Textual material describing fictional child abuse isn't quite in the same category. Deepfake material that purports to be of a specific real child may or may not be illegal depending on jurisdiction but really ought to be.
It's also a gateway, stoking interest in the real thing.
The first would require we outlaw generating depictions of any illegal activity. The second would require we ban undesirable men from legal adult content.
I think it's ok if society, and our legislature, classifies the information as illegal, in isolation, with no useless A->B gymnastics. Thats pretty much what the law already does.
What do you mean? You don't have to show the child in fake CSAM the CSAM to figure out if it happened or not. If there is no crime commited against the child in reality, there is nothing for it to testify.
If, and only if, you limit the scope of the logic to CSAM, which is my point.
The logic, by itself, could apply to any video evidence of crime. For instance, if we want CCTV videos to remain admissable in court, then according to parents logic, we need to outlaw any video generation of CCTV format, otherwise every defendant can simply claim the videos are fake.
But it is a lot easier to have folks who are in charge of systems testify as to their authenticity than to have a child who has been abused testify to the authenticity of the abuse, thus the logic is defensibly limited to child abuse.
Exactly my point? We don't need to come up with a generic legal basis or reason, we can just say "CSAM is special" in a legal sense.
When you introduce a picture or video in a trial (or hearing) then someone with knowledge of the video must appear to "lay a foundation" and say what is presented is true and accurate and genuine. Often there are stipulations to avoid this (e.g. in a murder trial it generally pisses the court staff off if the defendant demands that the crime scene photographer turns up to say they took the photos of the body), but it is still not uncommon for a lab technician to be brough to court to explain how they processed some drug sample.
The poster a bit above you was right about the problem with AI. If we say AI CSAM should be legal then we might end up with the scenario that all CSAM is considered fake unless we can uncover the victim or perpetrator and have them brought to court to say they took the photo or video. It's a very tough legal problem.
Slippery Slope is a fallacy if the person you're arguing with has no intention of going further than exactly what they've said.
Even if there are people who can indulge in imaginary CSAM without ever bringing it into real life, those are not the people you can set the bar against.
You have to set it against the average person and deduce from there what percentage of them when given free access to this material would be tempted into committing crimes. If that number goes up, your rule is too loose.
Giving everyone unlimited access to this without judgement will almost certainly increase child sex crimes. Therefore it must be restricted.
Your gut feeling is simply wrong.
General pornography availability and sexual assault are negatively correlated; you'll notice the former increased dramatically and the latter decreased dramatically over the past 20 years in Western societies where that is true.
Despite what you might be led to believe crime rates were not increasing (well, before 2020 anyway).
But let's say we do live in a world where fictional crimes often escalate to real ones. Suppose that playing DOOM increases the chance that an unstable person will buy a gun and shoot real people. Even in that universe, I would not be OK with laws that restrict me from playing DOOM, because that violates my freedom. I do not want the law to treat everyone as a potential criminal.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-man-sentenced-40-years-...
the attempt to stoke a moral panic in this article (and the forbes article from january it's referencing) is baffling. you can go to any booru or hentai site and see far more graphic things than boring LLM slop, and it's all on clearnet, because terrible things are not illegal as long as they are imaginary (in all but the most ass-backwards jurisdictions).
it reads like boomer bullshit about violent video games from 20+ years ago. "A Single Unattended Computer Can Feed a Crowd of Violent Teenagers. We left a computer unattended, and guess what? They were playing Doom on it! Just like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold!"