cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/15863526

Steven Anderegg allegedly used the Stable Diffusion AI model to generate photos; if convicted, he could face up to 70 years in prison

    • bjorney ( bjorney@lemmy.ca ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s open source code that someone ran on their own computer, it’s not like he used paid OpenAI credits to generate the image.

      It also would set a bad precedent - it would be like charging Solomons & Fryhle because someone used their (absolutely ubiquitous) organic chemistry textbook to create methamphetamine

    • JokeDeity ( JokeDeity@lemm.ee ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Just to be clear, you guys think that any company that produces anything that ends up used in a crime should have criminal charges for making the product? Yeah, makes about as much sense as anything these days.

    • jonne ( jonne@infosec.pub ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think stable diffusion is an open source AI you can run on your own computer, so I don’t see how the developers should be held responsible for that.

  • Lowlee Kun ( Obonga@feddit.de ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    13.000 images are generated relatively fast. My PC needs like 5 seconds for a picture with SD(depending on settings of course). So not even a day.

    Also, if pedos would only create their own shit to fap to i would consider this a win.

  • Sensitive topic - obviously.

    However these guard rail laws, and “won’t someone think about the children” cases are a reeeeally easy way for the government to remove more power from the people.

    However, I believe if handled correctly, banning this sort of thing is absolutely necessary to combat the mental illness that is pedophilia.

  • HelixDab2 ( HelixDab2@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    The basis of making CSAM illegal was that minors are harmed during the production of the material. Prior to CG, the only way to produce pornographic images involving minors was to use real, flesh-and-blood minors. But if no minors are harmed to create CSAM, then what is the basis for making that CSAM illegal?

    Think of it this way: if I make a pencil drawing of a minor being sexually abused, should that be treated as though it is a criminal act? What if it’s just stick figures, and I’ve labeled one as being a minor, and the others as being adults? What if I produce real pornography using real adults, but used actors that appear to be underage, and I tell everyone that the actors were all underage so that people believe it’s CSAM?

    It seems to me that, rationally, things like this should only be illegal when real people are being harmed, and that when there is no harm, it should not be illegal. You can make an entirely reasonable argument that pornographic images created using a real person as the basis does cause harm to the person being so depicted. But if it’s not any real person?

    This seems like a very bad path to head down.