doesn’t it follow that AI-generated CSAM can only be generated if the AI has been trained on CSAM?
This article even explicitely says as much.
My question is: why aren’t OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Anthropic… sued for possession of CSAM? It’s clearly in their training datasets.
Being legally considered CSAM and actually being CSAM are two different things. I stand behind what I said which wasn’t legal advise. By definition it’s not abuse material because nobody has been abused.
There’s a reason it’s legally considered CSAM. as I explained it is material that depicts it.
You can’t have your own facts, especially not contrary to what’s legally determined, because that means your definition or understanding is actually ILLEGAL!! If you act based on it.
Which law are you speaking about?
I already told you that I’m not speaking from legal point of view. CSAM means a specific thing and AI generated content doesn’t fit under this definition. The only way to generate CSAM is by abusing children and taking pictures/videos of it. AI content doesn’t count any more than stick figure drawings do. The justice system may not differentiate the two but that is not what I’m talking about.
Society has decided otherwise, as I wrote, you can’t have your own facts or definitions. You might as well claim that in traffic red means go, because you have your own interpretation of how traffic lights should work.
Red is legally decided to mean stop, so that’s how it is, that’s how our society works by definition.
Please tell me what own fact/definitions I’m spreading here. To me it seems like it’s you whose taking a self-explainatory, narrow definition and stretching the meaning of it.
Hi there, I’m a random passerby listening in on your argument!
You both make great points, and I’m not sure if there’s a misunderstanding here, because I don’t see why this is still going back and forth.
I agree with Free, that if an AI creates an image of CSAM, that there is no child being abused and that it is not anywhere near the same level of evil as actual photographs of CSAM. Different people will have different opinions on that, and that’s fine, it’s a topic that deserves debate.
Buffalox, is saying that your personal stance on the topic doesn’t really matter if the law has deemed it so. Which is also correct. When we talk about drugs, some people do not consider cannabis to be “a drug”, others consider caffeine and sugar to be drugs, but no matter where you stand, there IS a defined list of what you can get arrested for, and no matter how I try to spin the “secret medicinal advantages of meth” (that’s a joke, there are none.) it’s not going to keep me out of prison.
You’re both making valid arguments that don’t necessarily conflict with each other.
For me, this was at no point about the morality of it. I’ve been strictly talking about the definition of terms. While laws often prohibit both CSAM and depictions of it, there’s still a difference between the two. CSAM is effectively synonymous with “evidence of crime” If it’s AI generated, photoshopped, drawn or what ever, then there has not been a crime and thus the content doesn’t count as evidence of it. Abuse material literally means what it says; it’s video/audio/picture content of the event itself. It’s illegal because producing it without harming children is impossible.
EDIT: It’s kind of same as calling AI generated pictures photographs. They’re not photographs. Photographs are taken with a camera. Even if the picture an AI generates is indistinguishable from a photograph it still doesn’t count as one because no cameras were involved.
Right. I get you, and I agree, and I don’t think Buffalox was contradicting you by essentially saying “even if they technically aren’t the same, your government may still count it as the same.”
Yeah, and I think Buffalox agrees aswell. We were simply talking past each other. Even they used the term “depictions of CSAM” which is the same as the “simulated CSAM” term I was using myself.