This might be a controversial post.
-
That's a different story, and this is rightfully illegal as it harms the personality rights of the people depicted.
I was specifically referring to the reports of people getting upset about *conversations* they said to have had with their "ai" companions or friends, or whatever these bots pretend to be.
@mina I haven't seen complaints about text
-
as a parent, I feel far more comfortable if wannabe child abusers¹ satisfy their desires in private with a chatbot or a doll in whatever shape, as if they were trying to abuse real children, be it online or offline.
2/2
¹they call themselves "paedophiles", but it's not the right word, as there is nothing loving and caring in what they want.
@mina afaik the current scientific knowledge says that a considerable percentage of pedophiles that use simulations will be harming children eventually, directly or indirectly. responsible pediphiles thus look for treatment that inhibits their sexual desires.
-
@mina I haven't seen complaints about text
I have, yesterday and some hours ago.
I tried to find them, but alas, it were screenshots, not texts, so the search didn't find them.
It was specifically about the program impersonating a minor (15 or so), with sexual urges which included choking and rough handling, stating that such texts would be illegal in the UK and demanding to hold Musk personally responsible.
-
@mina afaik the current scientific knowledge says that a considerable percentage of pedophiles that use simulations will be harming children eventually, directly or indirectly. responsible pediphiles thus look for treatment that inhibits their sexual desires.
Is there a reliable statistic about that? I find it hard to believe that this can be done.
I wonder if they included Catholic priests in the control group.
-
I have, yesterday and some hours ago.
I tried to find them, but alas, it were screenshots, not texts, so the search didn't find them.
It was specifically about the program impersonating a minor (15 or so), with sexual urges which included choking and rough handling, stating that such texts would be illegal in the UK and demanding to hold Musk personally responsible.
@mina Can't comment on that, except that it is a result of copyright infringement as everything LLM generated.
-
Is there a reliable statistic about that? I find it hard to believe that this can be done.
I wonder if they included Catholic priests in the control group.
@mina i’m not in much into the topic, so no deep knowledge here. but i did read about this project
https://sexualmedizin.charite.de/forschung/kein_taeter_werden/
and i think they have some more material there.
from a very personal standpoint i find this convincing: if you really want to do something, anything, a simulation is never enough, but instead feeds the desire to do the real thing. this is not scientific ofc
-
@mina Can't comment on that, except that it is a result of copyright infringement as everything LLM generated.
I mean: I hate all that LLM shit with my whole heart. I hate child abusers even a thousand times more, but I don't think, there should be something like a "thought crime".
-
@mina i’m not in much into the topic, so no deep knowledge here. but i did read about this project
https://sexualmedizin.charite.de/forschung/kein_taeter_werden/
and i think they have some more material there.
from a very personal standpoint i find this convincing: if you really want to do something, anything, a simulation is never enough, but instead feeds the desire to do the real thing. this is not scientific ofc
OK. Da ist viel weiterführende Info, die ich jetzt nicht lesen kann.
Das mache ich am Wochenende oder nächste Woche.
Im Einführungstext ist definitiv nicht von rein simulierten Darstellungen (etwa Texte, Comics oder Puppen) die Rede, sondern von echtem Missbrauch und echten Missbrauchsdarstellungen.
-
@mina regarding catholic priests: the amount of perpetrators in that demographic is embarrassing and really bad at the same time, for sure. but somehow i think becoming a priest might also be understood as a misdirected attempt to not become a perpetrator. finding peace in god and all that weird stuff.
@mina on the other hand i’m quite convinced that churches draw in men (sic!) that get off on power over others, children specifically or just general people. so this line of questioning might better be started at “priests” not at “pedophiles”.
-
@mina i’m not in much into the topic, so no deep knowledge here. but i did read about this project
https://sexualmedizin.charite.de/forschung/kein_taeter_werden/
and i think they have some more material there.
from a very personal standpoint i find this convincing: if you really want to do something, anything, a simulation is never enough, but instead feeds the desire to do the real thing. this is not scientific ofc
@mina regarding catholic priests: the amount of perpetrators in that demographic is embarrassing and really bad at the same time, for sure. but somehow i think becoming a priest might also be understood as a misdirected attempt to not become a perpetrator. finding peace in god and all that weird stuff.
-
I mean: I hate all that LLM shit with my whole heart. I hate child abusers even a thousand times more, but I don't think, there should be something like a "thought crime".
@mina No, but there is incitement to hatred and many fantasies written in the manosphere would fall under it if anyone cared to look into them.
-
@mina No, but there is incitement to hatred and many fantasies written in the manosphere would fall under it if anyone cared to look into them.
Publication is a different thing from personal "use".
I don't think, hate speech should be allowed.
-
Publication is a different thing from personal "use".
I don't think, hate speech should be allowed.
@mina If it was only for personal use, how did you find out about it?
-
@mina If it was only for personal use, how did you find out about it?
People (journalists) wrote about what they managed to make their chatbots say.
-
This might be a controversial post.
Now that everybody is getting railed up about Elon Musk's #Grok producing #sexually charged text (or images?) involving minors, I wonder if there isn't a certain hypocrisy in that discussion.
Are we again at the "video games cause mass shootings" point?
As long as no real child sex abuse material was used for training and no real person's identity (e.g. face) is used, I don't see the harm.
Actually,
1/2
How will AI know how to create CSA representation if it doesn't have real CSA material to imitate?
-
People (journalists) wrote about what they managed to make their chatbots say.
@mina I know there are more concerns than grownups getting generated BDSM fiction involving minors and not showing it to anyone else. Children's LLM powered toys are already teaching children about kink. But those journalists might be arguing just against that, IDK, haven't seen it. Though, what was in their mind to prompt LLMs to generate that in the first place
-
How will AI know how to create CSA representation if it doesn't have real CSA material to imitate?
And to make my point clearer, if that AI was trained on non-sexual child nudity content and now is asked to use it for creating sexualized images, I would argue that this is an act of sexualizing the children in the training material, even if the result doesn't look like them.
-
And to make my point clearer, if that AI was trained on non-sexual child nudity content and now is asked to use it for creating sexualized images, I would argue that this is an act of sexualizing the children in the training material, even if the result doesn't look like them.
I don't know the training data, I don't know the algorithms, and I am not inside the twisted mind of people trying to evoke the creation of simulated abuse material via prompts.
What I find suspicious, is the sudden moral panic around one aspect of a technology that is ultimately just designed to produce any result people want to see.
-
I mean: I hate all that LLM shit with my whole heart. I hate child abusers even a thousand times more, but I don't think, there should be something like a "thought crime".
@mina @rhelune Trust me when I say — it is a deliberate wedge tactic to “force” us to choose between two rights (not true: we can keep both). But they want us to give up one of these in the name of the other, and are positioning the technology to make (what seems like) a tough fork in the road for our future society.
Policework and arrests didn’t stop the day encryption became universal, and this is no different.
-
I don't know the training data, I don't know the algorithms, and I am not inside the twisted mind of people trying to evoke the creation of simulated abuse material via prompts.
What I find suspicious, is the sudden moral panic around one aspect of a technology that is ultimately just designed to produce any result people want to see.
I didn't see the moral panic. I have nothing against artificially generated images that satisfy people's desires even if these desires would be very important in the real world. But one reoccurring issue with generative AI is that it is actually plagiarizing other work. In this case it might actually be pictures of real children and I find that morally problematic. I wouldn't care if it were completely artificial.
