• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’m not sure where you’re going with that? I would argue that yes, it is. As it’s sexual material of a child, with that child’s face on it, explicitly made for the purpose of defaming her. So I would say it sexually abused a child.

      But you could also be taking the stance of “AI trains on adult porn, and is mearly recreating child porn. No child was actually harmed during the process.” Which as I’ve said above, I disagree with, especially in this particular circumstance.

      Apologies if it’s just my reading comprehension being shit

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        13
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s actually not clear that viewing material leads that person to causing in person abuse

        Providing non harmful ways to access the content may lead to less abuse as the content they seek no longer comes from abuse, reducing demand for abusive content.

        That being said, this instance isn’t completely fabricated and given its further release is harmful as it it involves a real person and will have emotional impact.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          13 months ago

          There’s other instances where it was completely fabricated, and the courts ruled it was CSAM and convicted

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            6
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            There has been yes, but it doesn’t mean it’s the right ruling law. The law varies on that by jurisdiction as well because it is a murky area.

            Edit: in the USA it might not even be illegal unless there was intent to distribute

            By the statute’s own terms, the law does not make all fictional child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. The mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the Internet, transported across state lines, or of an amount that showed intent to distribute.[

            So local AI generating fictional material that is not distributed may be okay federally in the USA.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              23 months ago

              Serious value? How does one legally argue that their AI-generated child porn stash has “serious value” so they they don’t get incarcerated.

              Laws are weird.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Have the AI try to recreate existing CP already deemed to have serious value and then have all the prompts/variations leading up to the closest match as part of an exhibit.

                Edit: I should add, don’t try this at home, they’ll still probably say it has no value and throw you in jail.