• sugartits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.

    It does matter how myself and wider society view disgusting content. It matters a lot. And society absolutely has a say of it’s acceptance or otherwise to such content. You saying otherwise is absurd.

    In the same way that I can’t and shouldn’t write something incrediblely racist and pretend it’s ‘art’. Even if AI made it.

    Attempting to give AI child porn a pass, as you are doing for some baffling reason, absolutely will create further harm further down the line.

    • DaDragon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say it’s because the person you’re replying to rightfully sees it as a slippery slope. If you say this fake image that didn’t directly harm anyone is illegal, what’s to stop you from saying some other fake image that’s much more in line with social tastes is also illegal? Ie an artwork made of human shit, for example. Most people would be repulsed by that. But it doesn’t change the fact that it could be art. As long as it doesn’t concretely harm someone, it’s hard to equate it to said harm.

      • sugartits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s child porn.

        Child. Pornography.

        It is not “Art”.

        The slippery slope is people like you confusing the two and trying to somehow justify CP as free speech/art.

        I don’t care how it is made. There is a line. This crosses it. Simple as that.

            • Whoresradish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I am a software engineer and you are misrepresenting the technology. All the articles I can find state it was a web based ai generator but not which one. Please find me a company that makes this tech public and is somehow not in trouble but should be or is in trouble.

              “That same year, Tatum surreptitiously recorded one of his New York patients during an outpatient visit, five days after the youth turned 18.”

              “Two of the images Tatum used AI to modify were from a school dance”

              https://news.yahoo.com/charlotte-child-psychiatrist-used-ai-232015715.html

              The above quotes indicate it may have been used on an older child which could easily be done with legal training data. Please find any evidence that any public ai image generator is stupid enough to use CP when they are risking millions of dollars and would have to keep a lot of employees quiet about it.

            • papertowels
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Oh Jesus are you really just copy and pasting this reply to everyone that explains how machine learning works?