this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
32 points (76.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36409 readers
1041 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

doesn't it follow that AI-generated CSAM can only be generated if the AI has been trained on CSAM?

This article even explicitely says as much.

My question is: why aren't OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Anthropic... sued for possession of CSAM? It's clearly in their training datasets.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

CSAM = Child sexual abuse material
Even virtual material is still legally considered CSAM in most places. Although no children were hurt, it's a depiction of it, and that's enough.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Being legally considered CSAM and actually being CSAM are two different things. I stand behind what I said which wasn't legal advise. By definition it's not abuse material because nobody has been abused.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

There's a reason it's legally considered CSAM. as I explained it is material that depicts it.
You can't have your own facts, especially not contrary to what's legally determined, because that means your definition or understanding is actually ILLEGAL!! If you act based on it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

Which law are you speaking about?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

I already told you that I'm not speaking from legal point of view. CSAM means a specific thing and AI generated content doesn't fit under this definition. The only way to generate CSAM is by abusing children and taking pictures/videos of it. AI content doesn't count any more than stick figure drawings do. The justice system may not differentiate the two but that is not what I'm talking about.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

The only way to generate CSAM is by abusing children and taking pictures/videos of it.

Society has decided otherwise, as I wrote, you can't have your own facts or definitions. You might as well claim that in traffic red means go, because you have your own interpretation of how traffic lights should work.
Red is legally decided to mean stop, so that's how it is, that's how our society works by definition.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Please tell me what own fact/definitions I'm spreading here. To me it seems like it's you whose taking a self-explainatory, narrow definition and stretching the meaning of it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Hi there, I'm a random passerby listening in on your argument!

You both make great points, and I'm not sure if there's a misunderstanding here, because I don't see why this is still going back and forth.

I agree with Free, that if an AI creates an image of CSAM, that there is no child being abused and that it is not anywhere near the same level of evil as actual photographs of CSAM. Different people will have different opinions on that, and that's fine, it's a topic that deserves debate.

Buffalox, is saying that your personal stance on the topic doesn't really matter if the law has deemed it so. Which is also correct. When we talk about drugs, some people do not consider cannabis to be "a drug", others consider caffeine and sugar to be drugs, but no matter where you stand, there IS a defined list of what you can get arrested for, and no matter how I try to spin the "secret medicinal advantages of meth" (that's a joke, there are none.) it's not going to keep me out of prison.

You're both making valid arguments that don't necessarily conflict with each other.