No, that's not all I need to know. I need to know much much more than that, because my needs follow from my wants and I want to understand the full truth.
I can think for myself, and I don't need you, or Reuters, to think for me, thank you.
The consumption (possession) of CSAM is criminalized. Having a photo of you killing someone is not criminalized, but it will be used as evidence against you. These are not comparable
No: CSAM and murder are not genericizable equivalents in both directions across the chasm of contexts. An outcome for non-CSAM law is assumed applicable to CSAM law; an outcome for CSAM law is not assumed applicable to non-CSAM law. Yes, some decisions can cross from CSAM to non-CSAM, but the process is much more fraught, uncertain, and subjective: which is to say, ‘uncodable’ in engineering terms, rather than simply being a matter of having a footnote citation of existing ‘case law’ as it is when applying non-CSAM law to CSAM contexts. Generally modern societies consider this discontinuity to be ‘fair’ as they tend to view the population of children as deserving of unusual, context-specific protections — though co sidering how regressive the marriage and child labor laws of the southeastern United States are, I can certainly understand that this may come as a surprise to some! — and they tend to reach that judgment in this modern era regardless of well-constructed logical arguments claiming equivalence only once the social and cultural CSAM context is disregarded in their framing.
The argument that ‘the illegality of AI-generated CSAM would therefore apply to all AI-generated illegality and thus is undue harm upon non-CSAM contexts’ is constructed on the basis that ‘A therefore B’ implies ‘B therefore A’, which is untrue here as detailed above. If you have a better argument in defense of the right to generate CSAM, I recommend a refresher on obscenity laws, how they vary per country, and why they cannot be reduced so simply to ‘CSAM, therefore non-CSAM’ before presenting it; that’s not how it works, no matter how unpalatable or displeasing the one-way discontinuities of CSAM law may be. It’s also worth considering why Apple would both support individual freedoms and privacies while also refusing to deliver the overreach of privacy-destroying CSAM scanning that they at one point had announced last year; that is a very concrete example of undue harm to non-CSAM contexts, and the quality of this discussion would greatly benefit from familiarity in depth with the topic.
Certain materials are designed to produce sexual feelings. And I am not saying that having the thoughts is or should be a crime, though I think that having them is morally wrong.
Outlawing materials that are designed to produce pedophilic thoughts and consistently do so for some people is a way for society to say that such thoughts are wrong. I think part of being a responsible human being is controlling ones own thoughts to some ways.
Some materials aren't designed thus yet produce sexual feelings anyway. Some materials produced to generate sexual feelings produce disgust instead. This reasoning is why we have always seriously questioned the banning of anything.
You're just making more criminals this way. It's the same as saying air rifles that are indistinguishable from fully automatic weapons should be treated as fully automatic weapons.
I hate to extend a bad analogy, but If you rob a convenience store with an airsoft rifle that is visually indistinguishable from a real gun, you will be charged with armed robbery.
People are already using AI to generate porn of real minors, so you don't have to get hypothetical to see how the technology is used to abuse children. If it's easy for any predator to do this, then it's not hard to imagine that they will blackmail minors by threatening to release AI nudes to their friends and family unless they send them real CSAM.
You've combined two crimes into one. Robbing a bank with anything is armed robbery. My analogy is apt.
If I get pulled over with an airsoft identical to an AK47 and charged with trafficking illegal firearms, I think you will agree that I shouldn't be. It's not an AK47, it's an airsoft.
Similarly, calling AI generated imagery CSAM might be a pure category error. If there is no C being SA, it's not CSAM by definition.
Now if that imagery came about because real CSAM material was in the training data, or because someone used AI to generate sexual imagery of a real person, that's a different story. You now have a derivative work based on a real crime with real victims. But we'd also have some very real and important questions to be asking the model trainers.
In a vacuum though? Sorry no, it doesn't make any sense.
Generating sexualized pictures of minors and normalizing pedophillia is soliciting more abuse. You are willfully ignore that at this point to defend your shitty analogy. Your analogy sucks because child porn, and especially it's distribution is inherently bad for society. Trafficking an airsoft gun does nothing. Your semantic arguments about the acronym are extremely cliche especially since you know exactly what everyone means. Before some people started calling it CSAM, it was called child pornography AND IT WAS STILL ILLEGAL
Hold on, is there any evidence of this? This is a very delicate topic and gut reactions are often wrong. Playing violent video games doesn't cause violent behavior, for example.
We should be preventing harm to real children, as well as treating/managing people's psychological disorder of being attracted to children (instead of simply criminalizing it).
The war on drugs comes to mind - it criminalized a substance use disorder, gave power to organized crime, made it harder for people to seek help, allowed the market to be flooded with the most harmful versions of those substances which ultimately killed more people than it saved.
I think you're being overly emotional and haven't addressed any of my points. You just doubled down and said it's child porn again when I've stated to you a couple times that if the porn contains no child, it can't be child porn by definition.
And to be clear I'm not a consumer of such things nor am I attempting to normalize anything. I just want to find out the truth about stuff.
And yes, weapons that are indistinguishable from automatic weapons should be expected to be treated as such. I likely live in a world region with far less people dead from gun violence than you. And I gladly make that choice to keep my fellow humans alive, every single day. Only a brainwashed sociopath would not.
I know this is a different discourse in the US with different positions you all became propagandized to accept as "normal", but the numbers speak for themselves.
reply