I mean… why would you imagine a person would block the banning of child porn? Occam’s razor says he enjoys child porn.
Honestly, fuck Musk, but the fact that we’re willing to throw away all of our principles simply because Musk is involved is pretty terrifying to witness. Remember, every privacy-violating and rights-stripping law is sold as being “for the children.” And those selling those laws make a point to sell the laws in ways that appeal to both sides. When selling it to Democrats, they’ll highlight Musk’s opposition. When selling it to Republicans, they would find some Democrat who opposed it. And people of both parties eat it right up.
For example, even the headline is deceiving. Think about it critically. Why would the Minnesota legislature need to ban AI-generated child porn? Child porn is already incredibly illegal, regardless of how it’s made.
What the law actually does is to attempt to ban or restrict AI-based nudify apps, where you can upload an image of someone and have it remove their clothes. This applies to images of everyone, not just children. And just like the case of facial scans and ID uploading, inevitably such a law will restrict a hell of a lot more than just child porn.
From another article:
In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI — whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere — said it does not contest the state’s interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota’s law “extends far beyond that goal,” banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation.
What legitimate uses might exist? Well what if I want to use a nudify program on images of myself? I don’t particularly want to do that. But why shouldn’t I be able to? My body. My image. My choice. My computer. What if a sex worker wants to do so? Or if you lock down LLMs to try to keep them from generating such images, what other types of images that have nothing to do with nonconsensual pornography will you also restrict?
You should generally be extremely skeptical of anyone selling a policy “for the children.” In almost every case, the real goal is stripping away broader rights.
To me, this seems a lot like banning cameras in the name of fighting child pornography.
Think about it critically. Why would the Minnesota legislature need to ban AI-generated child porn? Child porn is already incredibly illegal, regardless of how it’s made.
To make a quick reply, you might want to look in to that. In some places if it isn’t a deepfake of a real child it’s as legal as the anime folk who draw the same awful shit, including some of the US.
Seems weird as fuck to me, because that’s putting the burden of proof on law enforcement and the courts to show that a person or act in a very real looking image actually took place. Checking now I see some things saying it’s not specifically criminalized in 10 states and some things saying 5.
I’d say at least the federal government has made it clear it’s considered every bit as bad as non-ai images of the same thing, but I can’t even bring myself to believe the federal government is doing a damn thing about child rape any more. :/
if it isn’t a deepfake of a real child
This is literally what the law is trying to stop.
Which is bad. Not good. Yes, if someone makes deepfake child porn of a real kid that’s definitely very awful and bad. But it should also be just as illegal to make AI generated porn of children even if they’re not deepfakes of real kids.
Anime/digital images of minors having sex having been a thing for decades has fucked things up. Those have been criminalized in some places in the world, but are considered distasteful but legal art in lots of others. Since AI generated images are fictional digital images created entirely by a computer and don’t depict an actual crime taking place against an actual child, the can fall into the same legal area are hand drawn or digitally made images of the same thing.
Laws focusing only on deepfakes of real kids are not good things, because all they do is put the burden of proof on the prosecution. It means that they need to prove this massive collection of photos of child rape they found on Steve Miller’s laptop are meant to depicting real kids, which means they need to find the real kids with nothing but AI generated photos of child rape before they can prove a crime has been committed.
When it’s found that someone has images of kids being raped, that should be enough. Whether you can ever locate the actual kids in the photos, whether you can ever prove this person is guilty of raping kids, possession of the photos in and of itself should be enough for them to be locked up, cause farther investigation, and for them to be sent to prison even if no farther crimes are discovered.
No one should be able to say “Oh, those aren’t fakes of real kids, it’s just fictional art.” and have that be an actual legal defense. This is potentially why Elon Musk wants to stop this bill. There are definitely people who want it to remain a legal loophole and possible viable defense for those caught with CSAM.
Well what if I want to use a nudify program on images of myself? I don’t particularly want to do that. But why shouldn’t I be able to?
“Well what if I want to use a bank robbery to withdraw money from my own bank account? I don’t particularly want to do that. But why shouldn’t I be able to?”
Get in front of a mirror and take a fucking picture of yourself nude if you so wish.
Have a better example?
Bank robbery is theft, hardly a protected First Amendment activity.
Generating csam is not a first amendment activity, you are talking crap.
Come on, that’s a warped bad-faith take and you know it. Making child porn with a film camera is illegal. Every camera is capable of making child porn. But we don’t outlaw cameras, or adult pornography, simply because the same tools allow the creation of child porn.
You are talking crap.
You are talking crap.
No, you are defending pedophiles. Stop it. It’s not a good look.
Imagine an artist consortium in Maine run by a venture capitalist. Imagine they take comissions - you submit your request and electronic payment, and they email your art back to you in a week. Protected first amendment “speech”? OK. Now imagine they’re well known for generating csam and the CEO refuses to intervene. First amendment doesn’t protect them or the CEO, and an awful lot of them are going to jail for a long time.
Was there anything the CEO could have done? Of course there was. Is there anything LLM companies could do? You’re flat out lying if you say there isn’t. And unlike you, I don’t care if they as a company decide to refuse to process any nude images as a result of their unwillingness to take on the risk or the complexity. But I think it’s a lot easier than people claim for a company that literally makes very sophisticated neural networks anyway and it wouldn’t stop them making image manipulation ai.
you’re kinda close, but still missing the mark… but if you didn’t understand the point, you have your mind set to being stupid and stubborn & I won’t waste energy trying to sway your opinion.
If you’re not willing to fight for your constitutional rights, then you don’t deserve to have them, and you will lose them.
Whether you think it’s right or not, being able to create nudified images of yourself is a perfectly valid and constitutionally protected action, just like making pornography generally. And any attempt to ban these apps would also restrict numerous other constitutionally protected activities and involve severe violations of privacy.
If you want to make an actual reply that gets to the core of my argument, rather than just going, “bruh, you think you should be able to rob a bank, no I refuse to actually explain anything, if you don’t get my unstated point, you’re a moron,” then go ahead.
Constitutional rights are important. You cannot choose to abandon them just because you find one application of them distasteful.
We can ban AI child porn by just treating it like any other child porn. We don’t try to regulate child porn by outlawing cameras. Go after the actual crime you want to prevent, not the tools that have many legitimate uses.
We don’t try to regulate child porn by outlawing cameras.
No, we try to ban it in its entirety by outlawing csam generating machines. Simple. If they can’t make they app without making the csam, they should not be allowed to make the app, and no, csam is not a first amendment right.
By your logic, we should outlaw cameras. Every camera is capable of making child pornography.
I think you should realistically examine the probability of such a law doing anything more than expended tax dollars on its creation, implementation, and its future failed attempts at enforcement. It’s pork belly legislation designed to create even more unnecessary federal jobs.
All previous attempts to legislate how computer users can use their computers has ended in dismal failure. It simply does not work.
Too many people believe that legislators can make laws to do great things without understanding their impossibility.
Legislators who introduce science or technology bills should be recalled for incompetence unless they actually hold a degree in any field in which they introduce legislation. The last thing the country needs is more bullshit laws like those in texas and california. Right wing/left wing, both places have a huge proportion of wingnut laws.
I genuinely don’t think he’s smart enough to hide anything effectively, so a warrant would prove fruitful if you could stop him from bribing anyone.
He wants it banned for two reasons: he’s a pedophile and twatter makes him $$$ off child porn.
I think Elon just needs a few more black eyes.
CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material), not child porn. Child porn implies they are complicit or that its a genre of porn. CSAM confirms that it exists exclusively to abuse children and they were abused in the making.
I got a jury duty summons a while ago and it stated what the defendant is being charged with and it was possession and distribution of child pornography. So that is what the federal government in the us appears to call it still.
I think you need to reread Orwell. And I’m not talking about 1984. Much of what Orwell wrote and was concerned about was the watering down and softening of language. And don’t knee-jerk think of just the popular surface-level image of 1984. We’re not talking government censorship or surveillance here. We’re talking about the long-term watering down of the language to strip it of its impact and power.
I get that what you’re saying is technically true, but we don’t need our language to be perfectly technically accurate, if the cost is taking away all the power of the words.
“Child Sexual Abuse Material.” Really? You just turned a 2 syllable label into a 10 syllable label. And you robbed the words of all their emotional impact and power.
“Child porn.” I instantly know exactly what that is. That has a very clear and specific meaning that anyone can understand in an instant. Everyone has seen porn and calls it as such. Append the word -child in front of that, and healthy people will feel an instant sense of revulsion in their stomach. “Child porn” is a label with POWER.
“Child Sexual Abuse Material.” What the fuck does that even mean? That could mean child porn. That could mean objects or tools used in the making of child porn. That could mean a newspaper article describing child porn. A book to train therapist on the effects of child abuse is, quite literally, “child sexual abuse material.” All of these things are material relating to child sexual abuse. By trying to make the label as bland and inoffensive as possible, you’ve taken all the gravity from it.
CSAM and bloated labels like it really get under my skin. It’s what Orwell warned us about.
And really, I think such things represent everything wrong with modern liberalism. A lot of liberal groups make the terrible mistake of focusing more on precise, perfectly non-offensive labeling than effective communication.
It’s child porn. “Child sexual abuse material” is too weak and generic a word to be effective. Read your Orwell. He warned us about this.
I’ve seen this argument a bunch, and I’ve gotta say it’s really weird to me.
I don’t know of a single person who would hear “child sexual abuse” and think it’s somehow harmless.
I don’t know of a single person who would hear “child porn” and think it’s somehow harmless.
If you’re used to hearing “child porn” and someone says “child sexual abuse material” you wouldn’t think it’s CP, since then they’d just say CP. It must be some kind of sexual abuse that is not as bad as CP, since they would call it that otherwise.
It’s even worse since “Child sexual abuse material” is so fucking long noone bothers to write it all, they just say CSAM, which has no meaning. If you don’t know what CSAM means, you won’t be shocked at all about the news. Meanwhile CP is most oftenly written as “child porn”, mostly using CP when “child porn” was already said. CP is a non-confusing name that everyone is familiar with, that is much more descriptive, and should generate hatred in the mind of any healthy person.
The only reason CSAM is used is because of American puritanism doesn’t let you say “porn”, which permeates to every enterprise setting. So you can’t call your software “child porn detection software” (think of the children!) you have to call it “CSAM detection software”. Pair that with the obnoxious need of some people to come up with new names for everything and call you *-ist for using the “old” name. And suddenly headlines are filled with random 4 letter acronyms without meaning instead of using the appropriate words.
I don’t know of a single person who would hear “child sexual abuse” and think it’s somehow harmless.
Irrelevant. The problem is emotional impact, not the literal meaning of the words.
Read Orwell’s Politics and the English Language. I’m basically cribbing from him.
The point is not that anyone would think the label is describing something harmless. The point is that it strips words of their power. Orwell extended this to say that clear language produces clear thinking.
“Child sexual abuse material” vs “child porn.”
“Age-restricted workforce implementation” vs “child labor.”
“Involuntary sexual intercourse” vs “rape.”
“Intentional cessation of third-party biological functions” vs “murder.”
“The Twentieth Century European Jewry Demographic Crisis” vs “The Holocaust.”
I can read the first version of each of those and understand their literal meaning just fine. But every syllable you add strips the power from the words. And much is lost as a consequence.
The point of communication is not only to impart the literal meaning of the words. It’s also to communicate emotional impact. “CSAM” and “child porn” share the same literal meaning, but their emotional definition is entirely different. They describe the same thing, but they are not the same word.
I don’t know anyone who would be confused by what “child porn” means. I think all this speech purity stuff distracts from the real harms going on. We don’t need more “um akchually” energy injected into every political issue.
yes and we should normalize referring it to the abuse that it is, however, boomers reading shared fb posts don’t know what csam is and do know that “p*rn bad”
Pretty sure they know porn is bad. P*rn is potentially confusing AND stupid.
PORNOGRAPHY the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures, movies, or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
Pornography is not a wrong word to use, and children can never consent to sexual acts. If children are involved in pornography it is abuse material and nothing else. There is no need to make up a new word for it.
CSAM gives the same vibes as MAP instead of paedophile
For me the distinction lies in the word erotic. A basal attraction based on traits of the other. When two or more people are involved then I would expand the same criteria to all involved. And that’s were I am getting stuck. The victim’s are for sure not enjoying themselves and the interaction in general and dfntl arent attracted to the abuser.
My argument being: (child) sexual abuse (or rather violence) is shown to be about power and control rather than sexuality. Its just using the same media as sexual acts. So child abuse has as much to do with porn just as swimming does with being held underwater and drowned.
I imagine this is related to people using Grok to undress others?
Yup. This is basically Musk admitting it’s a sizeable part of his revenue, he knows about it and doesn’t want to lose the clientele. Ghoulish.
AI slop is good for something after all…
Felt like one of the very few times grabbing a Gen AI image was appropriate lol.
In the UK before AI even existed our laws covered this and make it illegal.
Afaik loli is also illegal and considered CSAM in the US so I have no idea why AI images wouldnt be similarly illegal
Logically, I mean. Practically, like most things in America, I know the answer is “because rich people want it that way, fuck you”
Cause he pulls his pud to kiddie porn? Cause he thinks its easier to not fix his slop machine? Could be both.
the entire point of AI is to remove accountability from the process. if there are consequences, theres no reason to use AI and Elon’s investments are wasted.
TEMU Lex Luther can fuck right off
I’m more concerned about the origins of data used by Musk’s Company to train the models !
Many auto moderation tools use actual csam as reference so probably from there if i had to guess.
Isn’t it hash values of it rather than actual images? Or am I thinking of something else.
Yeah, most things that check for CSM content compare it with fuzzy hashes of known CSM content. Source: I teach cybersecurity classes and frequently have guest speakers from 3-letter agencies.
You realize this will be how age-gating and real identification for internet access will be presented for legislation across the western world, right?
I would love to read more on it because I genuinely don’t know how this would be enforced. This is the loli conundrum taken to AI slop. What’s stopping someone from making someone appear young then slapping a “I’m actually 18” somewhere in the prompt? Like how does one enforce this? Is it just vibes “Well, this person looks under 18?”
I don’t get it.
They have detectors that work fairly well. Not perfect but at least it’s something that can be verified by hand afterwards and reduces the workload. I’m fairly certain X isn’t running them by choice though.
There’s so much real cp on x. Why bother with generating slop? He’s also rich enough to rape babies without consequences. Really boggles the mind.
