Hello guys and gals, it's me Mutahar again! This time we take a look at what appears to be one of the most odd and disturbing rulings taking place. Technolog...
That’s not necessarily true. You could have all sorts of training models that didn’t rely on any real children at all. You’re just assuming it was trained on actual child porn. Other ways it could be trained:
Trained on images of adults that look younger than 18. You could commission a bunch of pornography by people with whatever medical condition this guy has and use that as your training data.
Trained on pornographic images of adults and regular images of kids. (This one is questionable legally, even though again, no kids were harmed in the making of it.)
Trained on entirely on images of adults, reviewers are tasked with trying to identify the age of the person in the image generated, and using that as training data.
If someone was deliberately trying to create a legal child porn engine (what a horrible phrase to type), they would be sure to do it without using any actual child porn as the training data. There would be little point otherwise.
In this thread we’re not talking about grok. We’re talking about whether simulated child porn itself is automatically illegal. And my point is that no, it need not be. I would agree that anything made using actual child porn images should be illegal. But if no actual children are involved at any point in the process? Changing the interpretation of the Constitution to allow making such a thing illegal would do more harm than you can possibly imagine.
What? No, that’s wrong. They can, for example, create a picture of a monkey made of yarn. Does that mean they were trained on pictures of ‘yarn monkeys’?
No, they had pictures of monkeys and pictures of things made of yarn; therefore, they can create pictures of ‘yarn monkeys’.
If you want to learn more about that, the specific term is ‘latent space’.
If AIs could only reproduce their training data they would be completely useless.
What? No, that’s wrong. Latent space is a way to reduce dimensionality in the dataset, but it still originates from the underlying data.
Of course a model can predict what a yarn monkey should look like if it knows what yarn is and it knows what monkeys are. It is still only combining things it knows, But in the context of this thread, the model has to be trained directly on children or told what children look like in these contexts, both of which raise serious ethical concerns to me.
If AIs could only reproduce their training data they would be completely useless.
And yeah, I think that pretty much sums up the AI bubble.
AI models only know what they are trained on. Inherently, that means real children are harmed in the production of AI-generated CSAM.
That’s not necessarily true. You could have all sorts of training models that didn’t rely on any real children at all. You’re just assuming it was trained on actual child porn. Other ways it could be trained:
Trained on images of adults that look younger than 18. You could commission a bunch of pornography by people with whatever medical condition this guy has and use that as your training data.
Trained on pornographic images of adults and regular images of kids. (This one is questionable legally, even though again, no kids were harmed in the making of it.)
Trained on entirely on images of adults, reviewers are tasked with trying to identify the age of the person in the image generated, and using that as training data.
If someone was deliberately trying to create a legal child porn engine (what a horrible phrase to type), they would be sure to do it without using any actual child porn as the training data. There would be little point otherwise.
Would they, really…? That’s giving the sort of guys actually responsible for doing this stuff an un-earned benefit of the doubt.
https://cyberscoop.com/xai-grok-csam-class-action-lawsuit/
In this thread we’re not talking about grok. We’re talking about whether simulated child porn itself is automatically illegal. And my point is that no, it need not be. I would agree that anything made using actual child porn images should be illegal. But if no actual children are involved at any point in the process? Changing the interpretation of the Constitution to allow making such a thing illegal would do more harm than you can possibly imagine.
I mean, they could, but they didn’t. There’s already slop machines out there churning out AI-generated CSAM.
This is completely wrong. I have no idea how you can say this when it is plainly obvious that ai can create things it never saw.
What? No, that’s wrong. They can, for example, create a picture of a monkey made of yarn. Does that mean they were trained on pictures of ‘yarn monkeys’?
No, they had pictures of monkeys and pictures of things made of yarn; therefore, they can create pictures of ‘yarn monkeys’.
If you want to learn more about that, the specific term is ‘latent space’.
If AIs could only reproduce their training data they would be completely useless.
What? No, that’s wrong. Latent space is a way to reduce dimensionality in the dataset, but it still originates from the underlying data.
Of course a model can predict what a yarn monkey should look like if it knows what yarn is and it knows what monkeys are. It is still only combining things it knows, But in the context of this thread, the model has to be trained directly on children or told what children look like in these contexts, both of which raise serious ethical concerns to me.
And yeah, I think that pretty much sums up the AI bubble.