Comment by notjulianjaynes

Comment by notjulianjaynes 10 months ago

It doesnt appear as if the cops generated any sexually explicit AI images of an underage girl. Is this accurate? Is there any legal precedent about AI CSAM yet? While that sort of content is of no interest to me I've been wondering about the ethics of it. How is it different than reading Marquis de Sade or William S. Burroughs (both have written very explicit scenes of violent and sexual abuse of children). Try reading the most fucked up part of Naked Lunch in a Walmart Subway sometime. It's a hoot.

dragonwriter 10 months ago

> Is there any legal precedent about AI CSAM yet?

Is there specific case law concerning AI depictions? Maybe not, but it is already a federal crime to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possesses with intent to distribute "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" that (in simple terms) are both obscene and depict or appear to depict minors in sexually explicit scenarios, and there is very little reason to think that courts would carve out AI from this general prohibition.

18 USC Sec. 1446A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

Reply View 3 replies

polski-g 10 months ago

This was struck down in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition. A new bill, the PROTECT Act, came about. But it only bans CP artwork that is "virtually indistinguishable" from real photos. I suspect it too will be struck down if prosecutors attempt to use it.

Reply View | 1 reply
- dragonwriter 10 months ago
  
  > This was struck down in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition
  No, it wasn't.
  > A new bill, the PROTECT Act, came about.
  This is a section added by the PROTECT Act. (The link includes reference to the law by which the section was added to the US code; one of the great things about LII is that it has added/amended information, not just the text.) It has nearly identical coverage to what was struck down, except that where what was struck down was struck down on the basis of not being limited strictly to obscene material, this added obscenity (by name in one place, and using the exact language of the Supreme Court standard for obscenity in another) to the former rule.
  > But it only bans CP artwork that is "virtually indistinguishable" from real photos.
  You are invited to read the text, this is simply false. (The PROTECT Act also added the “virtual identical” limitation you describe to the definitions applicable to the original offense, as well as adding this new one with the obscenity limitation, as a belt-and-suspenders approach — basically, the Supreme Court said that they could prohibit things that either meet the case law standard for obscenity or which has a sufficient nexus to actual come abuse, so the PROTECT Act took the original single prohibition and replaced it with two, one which was limited to be targeted on obscenity (18 USC §1446A) and one which was narrowed to what they felt might pass muster as sufficiently related to actual child abuse (the original prohibition with definitions at 18 USC § 2556, amended with the “virtually indistinguishable” restriction. The latter is the Constitutionally weaker of the two; that obscenity is not protected is well-established.)
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
sharpshadow 10 months ago

Are there other sexually explicit scenarios which are federal crimes? I guess all of them will be a problem soon.

Reply View | 0 replies

spacechild1 10 months ago

> Try reading the most fucked up part of Naked Lunch in a Walmart Subway sometime

I've read Naked Lunch, but I don't remember any descriptions of child abuse. Not saying I don't believe you, just wondering why I wouldn't remember the most fucked up part of a book.

Reply View 1 reply

notjulianjaynes 10 months ago

Trigger warning NSFW..
. . . .
>The Mugwump slips the noose over the boy's head and tightens the knot caressingly behind the left ear. The boy's penis is retracted, his balls tight. He looks straight ahead breathing deeply. The Mugwump sidles around the boy goosing him and caressing his genitals in hieroglyphs of mockery. He moves in behind the boy with a series of bumps and shoves his cock up the boy's ass. He stands there moving in circular gyrations. The guests shush each other, nudge and giggle. Suddenly the Mugwump pushes the boy forward into space, free of his cock. He steadies the boy with hands on the hip bones, reaches up with his stylized hiero- glyph hands and snaps the boy's neck. A shudder passes through the boy's body. His penis rises in three great surges pulling his pelvis up, ejaculates immediately.
--- Via https://www.electroniclibrary21.ru/literature/burroughs/nake...

Reply View | 0 replies

herbst 10 months ago

What if you instruct the AI that the person is 18 but looks like a child? Is it a child then or is it 18? And who is to judge?

This is going to get interesting in future for sure.

Reply View 2 replies

tstrimple 10 months ago

Ah the anime defense. No, she’s not a child. She’s actually a thousand year old witch who was cursed to have the body of a pre-pubescent girl.

Reply View | 0 replies
Ekaros 10 months ago

And other way around, you generate a image that you explicitly prompt to be under age but to appear adult. By definitions this would also be illegal image to store or spread. And anyone not immediately destroying or reporting it on receiving it could be prosecuted.

Reply View | 0 replies

throwaway48540 10 months ago

Some people argue that you need actual CSAM to produce AI CSAM. I don't think that's true, but in that case, it'd be different because it's a result of abuse, while books are not (directly).

Reply View 0 replies