No abuse of a real minor is needed.
Strange that there was no disagreement before "AI", right? Yet now we have a clutch of new "definitions" all of which dilute and weaken the meaning.
> In Sweden for instance, CSAM is any image of an underage subject (real or realistic digital) designed to evoke a sexual response.
No corroboration found on web. Quite the contrary, in fact:
"Sweden does not have a legislative definition of child sexual abuse material (CSAM)"
https://rm.coe.int/factsheet-sweden-the-protection-of-childr...
> If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM.
> No abuse of a real minor is needed.
Even the Google "AI" knows better than that. CSAM "is considered a record of a crime, emphasizing that its existence represents the abuse of a child."
Putting a bikini on a photo of a child may be distasteful abuse of a photo, but it is not abuse of a child - in any current law.
https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/5f881006d4d346b199ca...
> Även en bild där ett barn t.ex. genom speciella kameraarrangemang framställs på ett sätt som är ägnat att vädja till sexualdriften, utan att det avbildade barnet kan sägas ha deltagit i ett sexuellt beteende vid avbildningen, kan omfattas av bestämmelsen.
Which translated means that the children does not have to be apart of sexual acts and indeed undressing a child using AI could be CSAM.
I say "could" because all laws are open to interpretation in Sweden and it depends on the specific image. But it's safe to say that many images produces by Grok are CSAM by Swedish standards.
Your quote's offence looks like child porn. Max. 2 years jail. CSAM goes up to life, at least here in UK. Quite a difference.
> But it's safe to say that many images produces by Grok are CSAM by Swedish standards.
So the Govt/police would have acted against Grok, right? Have they?
Are you from Sweden? Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"? Or is it some USDefaultism where Americans assume their definition was universal?
No. I used this interweb thing to fetch that document from Sweden, saving me a 1000-mile walk.
> Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"?
I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement.
And I said that because I saw only agreement. CSAM == child sexual abuse material == a record of child sexual abuse.
So you cant speak Swedish, yet you think you grasped the Swedish law definition?
" I didn't say it was clear. I said there was no disagreement. "
Sorry, there are lots of different judical definitions about CSAM in different countries, each with different edge cases and how to handle them. I very doubt it, there is a disaggrement.
But my guess about your post is, that an American has to learn again there is a world outside of the US with different rules and different languages.
I guess you didn't read the doc. It is in English.
I too doubt there's material disagreement between judicial definitions. The dubious definitions I'm referring to are the non-judicial fabrications behind accusations such as the root of this subthread.
Sources? Sorry , your gut feeling does not matter. Esspecially if you are not a lawyer
Feel free to share any you've seen.
Please don't use the "knowledge" of LLMs as evidence or support for anything. Generative models generate things that have some likelihood of being consistent with their input material, they don't "know" things.
Just last night, I did a Google search related to the cell tower recently constructed next to our local fire house. Above the search results, Gemini stated that the new tower is physically located on the Facebook page of the fire department.
Does this support the idea that "some physical cell towers are located on Facebook pages"? It does not. At best, it supports that the likelihood that the generated text is completely consistent with the model's input is less than 100% and/or that input to the model was factually incorrect.
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/sven...
A person who
1. depicts a child in a pornographic image,
2. disseminates, transfers, provides, exhibits, or otherwise makes such an image of a child available to another person,
3. acquires or offers such an image of a child,
4. facilitates contacts between buyers and sellers of such images of children or takes any other similar measure intended to promote trade in such images, or
5. possesses such an image of a child or views such an image to which he or she has gained access
shall be sentenced for a child pornography offense to imprisonment for at most two years.
Then there's Proposition 2009/10:70, which is a clarifying document on how the law should be interpreted:
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/prop...
Let me quote (translated):
"To depict a child in a pornographic image entails the production of such an image of a child. An image can be produced in various ways, e.g., by photographing, filming, or drawing a real child. Through various techniques, more or less artificial images can also be created. For criminal liability, it is not required that the image depicts a real child; images of fictitious children are also covered. New productions can also be created by reproducing or manipulating already existing depictions, for example, by editing film sequences together in a different order or by splicing an image of a child’s head onto an image of another child’s body."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/93/oj/eng
Let me quote again: Pay attention to c.iv specifically:
(c) ‘child pornography’ means:
(i) any material that visually depicts a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct;
(ii) any depiction of the sexual organs of a child for primarily sexual purposes;
(iii) any material that visually depicts any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct or any depiction of the sexual organs of any person appearing to be a child, for primarily sexual purposes; or
(iv) realistic images of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
realistic images of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct or realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
covers the example in question:
If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM.
How about you?
Thanks, but what "the" actual law? Your one doesn't contain the purported Swedish CSAM definition, or any for that matter. Nor does it even mention abuse.
That underlines the extreme difference w.r.t. CSAM, which can get you life, at least here in UK.
It has been since at least 2012 here in Sweden. That case went to our highest court and they decided a manga drawing was CSAM (maybe you are hung up on this term though, it is obviously not the same in Swedish).
The holder was not convicted but that is besides the point about the material.
This one?
"Swedish Supreme Court Exonerates Manga Translator Of Porn Charges"
https://bleedingcool.com/comics/swedish-supreme-court-exoner...
It has zero bearing on the "Putting a bikini on a photo of a child ... is not abuse of a child" you're challenging.
> and they decided a manga drawing was CSAM
No they did not. They decided "may be considered pornographic". A far lesser offence than CSAM.
Not in any European law I know. See suicide and manslaughter.
Because that is up to the courts to interpret. You cant use your common law experience to interpret the law in other countries.
That interpretation wasn't mine. It came from the Court of Europe doc I linked to. Feel free to let them know its wrong.
I suspect none of us are lawyers with enough legal knowledge of the French law to know the specifics of this case