Illegal trade in AI child sex abuse images exposed

[Social Media]

 

Paedophiles are using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to create and sell life-like child sexual abuse material, the BBC has found.

Some are accessing the images by paying subscriptions to accounts on mainstream content-sharing sites such as Patreon.

Patreon said it had a "zero tolerance" policy about such imagery on its site.

The National Police Chief's Council said it was "outrageous" that some platforms were making "huge profits" but not taking "moral responsibility".

The makers of the abuse images are using AI software called Stable Diffusion, which was intended to generate images for use in art or graphic design.

AI enables computers to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence.

 

The Stable Diffusion software allows users to describe, using word prompts, any image they want - and the programme then creates the image.

But the BBC has found it is being used to create life-like images of child sexual abuse, including of the rape of babies and toddlers.

UK police online child abuse investigation teams say they are already encountering such content.

 

FULL STORY

 

[Berkshire]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

Paedophiles are using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to create and sell life-like child sexual abuse material, the BBC has found.

Interesting.  So if AI can create fake child sexual abuse material--with no actual child being abused--what's the problem?  Why is this against the law?  Wouldn't it be much better and safer for children around the world if these pedos can enjoy their fetish without any child being harmed?  Serious question.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

Interesting.  So if AI can create fake child sexual abuse material--with no actual child being abused--what's the problem?  Why is this against the law?  Wouldn't it be much better and safer for children around the world if these pedos can enjoy their fetish without any child being harmed?  Serious question.

It is a good question.

I think some might argue that people getting off on such images are more likely to abuse children IRL.

I guess you could argue that but I'm pretty sure there are zero academic studies on that.

It could just as easily be the other way.

That people wired that way can be satisfied with the AI generated images and may be much less likely to do IRL crimes.

I don't know either way.

If it's the latter is it just to punish people for how they are wired but don't/won't act out?

[Hanaguma]

59 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It is a good question.

I think some might argue that people getting off on such images are more likely to abuse children IRL.

I guess you could argue that but I'm pretty sure there are zero academic studies on that.

It could just as easily be the other way.

That people wired that way can be satisfied with the AI generated images and may be much less likely to do IRL crimes.

I don't know either way.

If it's the latter is it just to punish people for how they are wired but don't/won't act out?

I think you have a point.
We are allowed to watch movies where people pretend to kill each other in gruesome ways, torture each other, commit various crimes and it is fine. But not artificial images of kids? Viscerally it seems wrong, but should it be illegal?  

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

Interesting.  So if AI can create fake child sexual abuse material--with no actual child being abused--what's the problem?  Why is this against the law?  Wouldn't it be much better and safer for children around the world if these pedos can enjoy their fetish without any child being harmed?  Serious question.

I would think the answer is obvious.

 

The normalization of child sexual abuse.

 

Learn the behavior on an avatar and feed the need for more, until reality breaks out.

 

 

[Berkshire]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I would think the answer is obvious.

 

The normalization of child sexual abuse.

 

Learn the behavior on an avatar and feed the need for more, until reality breaks out.

 

 

Come on, it's not that simple and the answer isn't obvious.  Pedos have been around forever and clearly it wasn't learned from AI.  Question (which I don't have the answer):  Does every pedo who watches this garbage (with actual children) go out and molest children as a result?  I'm guessing they don't....at least not all.  So if they can watch AI sexual abuse....then what's the harm?  Granted, it's pretty freakin sick.  But that's better than watching the real stuff with real children being abused.  

[Jingthing]

I think this issue is closely related to a theory of law enforcement that seeks to find future criminals before they commit any crimes and to then separate them from society.

Following this topic suppose a person has never committed any IRL sex crimes but gets access to these kinds of AI photos and likes them.

Of course if owning or distributing them is a crime, then that itself is a crime.

But suppose it wasn't as no actual victims were involved.

In that case the question would be whether to assume such people were going to commit IRL sex crimes later.

Again, what studies have been done on this, if any?

Arresting such people is kind of like arresting people for thoughts.

Forgetting the pedo aspect which is of course very very hot button, do you really want to live in a world where your own private thoughts are criminalized? 

For example, it's obviously a rare human being that hasn't at least THOUGHT about murdering someone. Shall we lock everyone up just for thinking that?

Edited June 28, 2023 by Jingthing

[Berkshire]

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think this issue is closely related to a theory of law enforcement that seeks to find future criminals before they commit any crimes and to then separate them from society.

Following this topic suppose a person has never committed any IRL sex crimes but gets access to these kinds of AI photos and likes them.

Of course if owning or distributing them is a crime, then that itself is a crime.

But suppose it wasn't as no actual victims were involved.

In that case the question would be whether to assume such people were going to commit IRL sex crimes later.

Again, what studies have been done on this, if any?

Arresting such people is kind of like arresting people for thoughts.

Forgetting the pedo aspect which is of course very very hot button, do you really want to live in a world where your own private thoughts are criminalized? 

For example, it's obviously a rare human being that hasn't at least THOUGHT about murdering someone. Shall we lock everyone up just for thinking that?

Good points.  I don't think it's healthy for society to be viewing this filth.  But there are going to be people on the fringes who enjoy this stuff.  So best to make it as harmless for society as possible.  I don't know the answer, in terms of the law.  But purveyors of AI sexual abuse should not be treated the same as people who use real children. 

[Hanaguma]

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Good points.  I don't think it's healthy for society to be viewing this filth.  But there are going to be people on the fringes who enjoy this stuff.  So best to make it as harmless for society as possible.  I don't know the answer, in terms of the law.  But purveyors of AI sexual abuse should not be treated the same as people who use real children. 

I think we have been going through this for a while. Do people who play violent video games actually commit violence BECAUSE of the games? Ditto people who watch gruesome horror movies (Hostel, Human Centipede).  

How about those who just write about taboo topics with no illustrations? 

"Thought police" crimes can be a dangerous precedent.