And what happens when they start making requests of real underage people?
That’s the whole point of my argument. They don’t need to make request for real people if they can get fake ones of equal quality. Your argument reads like “We can’t let people have meat. What if they start eating live cows?”
Secondly: no, we don’t have evidence that this might decrease the danger for pedophiles to act on their desires, since the technology is rather new.
Of course we should not enable urges like that. Yet, we have to be realistic: there will always be those that can’t be treated. Do you want those who cannot be stopped from indulging in their desires to do so on children’s images by real, abused children, or do you want them to vent on made up images?
your argument is implying that if somehow we allow them to use AI generated child porn that it will somehow stop them from seeking the real stuff out or is somehow “better.”There is literally no evidence that suggests that in the slightest.
Of course. How would you procure such evidence? Give a group of pedophiles access to AI generated content and check if they molest children significantly less than a control group?
Pedophilia is an illness. […] You really need to […] take a macro view of what you are arguing in favor of.
I’m not defending pedophilia. Given that access to pedophilia treatment and prevention of sexual abuse is often lacking, I was starting a discussion of whether AI-generated content might be part of the prevention of sexual abuse of minors. After all, there are similar programs for drug abusers. Take methadone substitution as an example. Or establishments that are called “Drückerstube” in German (a very lacking translation would be “injection rooms”) – clean rooms where drug addicts have access to clean utensils for consuming drugs.
[…Methadone] relieves cravings and removes withdrawal symptoms. Withdrawal management using methadone can be accomplished […] or simply maintained for the rest of the patient’s life.
That’s the whole point of my argument. They don’t need to make request for real people if they can get fake ones of equal quality. Your argument reads like “We can’t let people have meat. What if they start eating live cows?”
deleted by creator
First if all: that is exactly how you treat addicts. https://harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12954-019-0340-4
Secondly: no, we don’t have evidence that this might decrease the danger for pedophiles to act on their desires, since the technology is rather new.
Of course we should not enable urges like that. Yet, we have to be realistic: there will always be those that can’t be treated. Do you want those who cannot be stopped from indulging in their desires to do so on children’s images by real, abused children, or do you want them to vent on made up images?
Of course. How would you procure such evidence? Give a group of pedophiles access to AI generated content and check if they molest children significantly less than a control group?
I’m not defending pedophilia. Given that access to pedophilia treatment and prevention of sexual abuse is often lacking, I was starting a discussion of whether AI-generated content might be part of the prevention of sexual abuse of minors. After all, there are similar programs for drug abusers. Take methadone substitution as an example. Or establishments that are called “Drückerstube” in German (a very lacking translation would be “injection rooms”) – clean rooms where drug addicts have access to clean utensils for consuming drugs.
deleted by creator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methadone (emphasis mine)
You also ignored my other example.
deleted by creator
That’s unfortunate. I was hoping to find arguments in favor of your point of view that are more substantial than proof by assertion.
While I obviously don’t agree with your take on the subject, I’m still glad you voiced your opinions, so we could examine and evaluate them.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator