Well, this just got darker.
deleted by creator
to cultures like Japan and Russia that don’t strongly condemn such things
As someone from Russia - what?
Unless you mean being attracted to post-puberty, but pre-legal girls. That, ahem, makes sense biologically.
Girls of that age are sometimes kinda cruel to boys, though, so my personal teenage years trauma prevents me from dreaming of them. But if not for it, I think I would.
Toddlers are a completely different issue.
It’s racism, due to his political alignment he can’t go after black people but Russians are fair game.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Ain’t that what are the tools there for. I mean I don’t like cp and I don’t want to engage in way with people who like it. But I use those llms to describe fantasies that I wouldn’t even talk about with other humans.
As long as they don’t do it on real humans nobody is hurt.
The problem with AI generated CP is that if they’re legal, it opens a new line of defense for actual CP. You would need to prove the content is not AI to convince real abusers. This is why it can’t be made legal, it needs to be prosecuted like real CP to be sure to convict actual abusers.
This is an incredibly itchy and complicated theme. So I will try not go go really further into it.
But prosecute what is essentially a work of fiction seems bad.
This it not even a topic new to the AI. CP has been wildly represented in both written and graphical media. And the consensus in most free countries is not to prosecute those as they are a work of fiction.
I cannot think why an AI written CP fiction is different from human written CP fiction.
I suppose “AI big bad” justify it for some. But for me there should be a logical explanation behind if we would began to prosecute works of fiction why some will be prosecuted and why other will not. Specially when the one that’s being prosecuted is just regurgitating the human written stories about CP that are not being prosecuted nowadays.
I essentially think that a work of fiction should never be prosecuted to begin with, no matter the topic. And I also think that an AI writing about CP is no worse than an actual human doing the same thing.
I’m unfamiliar with the exact situation here, but when it comes to generative AI as I understand it, CP image output also means CP images in the training data.
That may not strictly be true, but it is certainly worth investigating at minimum.
Common misconception. AI can take an image of a child and an image of a naked woman and produce an image of a naked child (who does not resemble either the child or the woman). There’s no need for actual CP in the dataset.
This is a weird one, because while fantasy is fantasy, and doesn’t necessarily indicate an intention to act on anything, these people were dumb enough to share these specific fantasies with some random AI porn site. That’s got to be an indicator of poor impulse control, right?
That alone should probably warrant immediate FBI background checks, or whatever relevant agencies have jurisdiction for these types of criminal investigations in each user’s locality.
Of course, I am saying it’s without actually having read any of the chats. So it’s possible my opinion would change from “this should be investigated”, to summary executions and burn the bodies for good measure… but no way I’m reading those fucking chats.
Just to be clear, are you saying that people should be investigated by the police for fictional stories that they read?
I mean, if those stories were made by their prompts and about having sex with children then maybe 🤷♂️
I know we need to draw a line about what police can do with that sort of info so it’s not abused, but these people are still sick fucks.
Now that devices are starting to have built in features with AI automatically combing through all information on them, the idea of this sort of stuff being logged in the first place is concerning.
For instance, should someone prompting an AI to describe them beating up and torturing their boss be flagged for “potentially violent tendencies”? Who decides the “limit” where “privacy” no longer applies and stuff should be flagged, logged and sent off to authorities?
As I see it, the real issue is people being hurt, not text or fictive materials, however sickening they might be.
If the resources invested in spying on people and making databases were instead directed towards funding robust and publicly available psychiatric care I expect that’d be more efficient.
I actually don’t think this is shocking or something that needs to be “investigated.” Other than the sketchy website that doesn’t secure user’s data, that is.
Actual child abuse / grooming happens on social media, chat services, and local churches. Not in a one on one between a user and a llm.
deleted by creator
I missed the original comment and this discussion now makes no sense. Why would you edit the content of your comment when you don’t care about the points or the outrage?
deleted by creator
Paywall. That site frankly does not even look legit and looking at the plethora of other AI sites I don’t know who would use this one. It’s not even displaying correctly and has like 0 information on anything. If I were to stumble upon that site I’d think it is shady as hell.
There are better ways to assess the legitimacy of a media outlet than critiquing its web design. The Wikipedia page might be a good start.
I don’t like the loginwall, but it doesn’t require payment.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension.
I also think the issue was with your comment. It could’ve been written a bit more clearly
I don’t know how my comment is unclear. Unless 404 is an AI site somehow, which I wouldn’t even know about.
Paywall. That site frankly does not even look legit and looking at the plethora of other AI sites I don’t know who would use this one. It’s not even displaying correctly and has like 0 information on anything. If I were to stumble upon that site I’d think it is shady as hell.
The “Paywall” followed by “That site” makes most people think (me included) that you’re talking about the news outlet, 404media, not the AI site mentioned. Writing something like this:
Paywall. The AI site they mention does not even look legit (…)
Wouldn’t leave such a wide margin for misinterpretation
No. “Paywall” followed by a period, also known as “full stop”, followed by a line break / new paragraph (which you conveniently removed), which all indicate a separation, followed by comparing the AI site to “other AI sites”. You have to be willfully obtuse to assume that when I talk about AI sites I’m referring to the news site there.
