Justice Thomas too forecasted that “technology may evolve to the point where it becomes impossible to enforce actual child pornography laws because the Government cannot prove that certain pornographic images are of real children.” In his view, “if technological advances thwart prosecution of ‘unlawful speech,’ the Government may well have a compelling interest in barring or otherwise regulating some narrow category of ‘lawful speech’ in order to enforce effectively laws against pornography made through the abuse of real children.”
What I don’t understand, is how where the models trained. I don’t think they just took adult parts and made them smaller… so wouldn’t that make the content illegal?
From the article:
However, there is no source for this. I would really like to see one because that’s a huge part of the issue.
But regardless, this court ruling said that only possession is protected by current laws, not production or distribution.
Any model able to generalize will necessarily learn how to combine “nude” and “child” in the same way that it would learn how to combine “rainbow” and “banana”. That’s the whole point of the model is to generalize. It isn’t required that one particular combination of concepts is in the training data for the model to learn how to do it.