Pedophilia is not a sexuality and CSAM, AI generated or not, is not a healthy outlet. Pedophilia should be treated as a disease, and pedophiles should receive treatment for that instead.
pedophiles should receive treatment for that instead
In a world where many people cannot afford basic healthcare or – if they can afford it – where healthcare isn’t available in the required quantity, does your argument still hold?
If I’m not mistaking I remember reading that consuming CSAM increases the likelihood of offense since it normalizes the act/makes the fantasies more vivid. It makes them more want to act out what they see instead of removing desires.
This would explain why the people with pedophilic tendencies in the facility where my brother worked were recommended not to even view certain non-sexual media involving children. The doctors explained that doing so would only reinforce their pedophilia.
In spite of how many people I see online repeating the myth that “providing an outlet” decreases the chance of offending, the experts in the field appear to disagree, and I’ve not seen any evidence that providing access to simulated CSAM has any benefits whatsoever. It seems most likely that it’s detrimental, no matter how many professional redditeurs tell us they’re “just pixels on the screen.”
Edit: After reading further in this thread, I feel the need to mention that unhinged violence against non-offending pedophiles also does not solve anything. Some of you need help.
Stable Difussion still has some steep learning curve and requires some money investment onto hardware or cloud GPU access. Meaning they have probably several hours to re-think how stupid is what they’re doing.
A simple app you can download into your phone and do this shit is a pretty easy and quick way of ruining two lives (probably).
Then again, the hammer should fall onto the developers and the app store that allowed it on the first place. (IMO)
It’s still fake. But if it looks like a person in real life, what difference does the distinction make?
I’m pretty sure there is a quite a difference between an actual human being abused and a victimless depiction of such act. Not unlike watching a violent movie. Such people obviously still need help and treatment, but to me it seems vastly better than the alternative.
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.
It depends on whether you hold a world view where every person is valuable and needs help and understanding to become their best self or one where there are good and bad people and the baddies need to be punished and locked away so everyone else can live their life in peace.
That’s a rather useless contribution to the discussion. The initial argument was a line of reasoning why artificial csam might be a benefit so people can vent their otherwise harmful behavior without harming actual people. You just flat out responded “it is enabling and doesn’t stop distribution”. So you just responded with “no, u wrong”. Care to tell us you reasons behind your stance?
That’s not picky about wording.
While I agree that stuff like that should not exist at all in no way whatsoever, there is a vast difference between it existing because someone abused a child, recorded that and thus scarred the child for life, or if someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting.
someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting
I like that take. It lends itself to comparison: The Saw movies were well-received (at first), even though most people would abhor hurting others in this way.
That’s why people like them, you can say make me a photo of a “monkey riding a pickle in space” or “a dog made of cheese” and it’ll make it despite obviously having no reference.
It only needs to be trained to know what things are, it can mix them freely.
Well, butter my turnips! That’s not something I expected to see today and that cartoon version will eventually find its way into a shirt, I’m telling ya.
Isn’t it a good thing for pedophiles to have an outlet for their desires that doesn’t involve harming children? Am I not seeing an obvious downside?
Pedophilia is not a sexuality and CSAM, AI generated or not, is not a healthy outlet. Pedophilia should be treated as a disease, and pedophiles should receive treatment for that instead.
AFAIK you can’t “cure” pedophilia the same way you can’t cure homosexuality. The best you can do is teach people not to act on their desires.
Chemical castration?
There is a cure for pedophilia. It’s a 45ACP hollow point to the genital, brain, or both.
In a world where many people cannot afford basic healthcare or – if they can afford it – where healthcare isn’t available in the required quantity, does your argument still hold?
the treatment is daily merciless beatings
If I’m not mistaking I remember reading that consuming CSAM increases the likelihood of offense since it normalizes the act/makes the fantasies more vivid. It makes them more want to act out what they see instead of removing desires.
This would explain why the people with pedophilic tendencies in the facility where my brother worked were recommended not to even view certain non-sexual media involving children. The doctors explained that doing so would only reinforce their pedophilia.
In spite of how many people I see online repeating the myth that “providing an outlet” decreases the chance of offending, the experts in the field appear to disagree, and I’ve not seen any evidence that providing access to simulated CSAM has any benefits whatsoever. It seems most likely that it’s detrimental, no matter how many professional redditeurs tell us they’re “just pixels on the screen.”
Edit: After reading further in this thread, I feel the need to mention that unhinged violence against non-offending pedophiles also does not solve anything. Some of you need help.
deleted by creator
Based on this article, it seems that teens were using an app: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/ai-generated-child-sexual-abuse-images-could-flood-the-internet-a-watchdog-is-calling-for-action/ar-AA1iMZj5
Is that your reference?
deleted by creator
Stable Difussion still has some steep learning curve and requires some money investment onto hardware or cloud GPU access. Meaning they have probably several hours to re-think how stupid is what they’re doing.
A simple app you can download into your phone and do this shit is a pretty easy and quick way of ruining two lives (probably).
Then again, the hammer should fall onto the developers and the app store that allowed it on the first place. (IMO)
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure there is a quite a difference between an actual human being abused and a victimless depiction of such act. Not unlike watching a violent movie. Such people obviously still need help and treatment, but to me it seems vastly better than the alternative.
deleted by creator
It very much might be an either/or situation for many, even if it’s not in all the cases.
deleted by creator
Back at you. We’re both speculating.
Maras and Shapiro argue that VCSAM does not prevent the escalation of pedophilic behavior. Conversely, it can progress CSAM addiction. VCSAM can fuel the abuse of children by legitimizing and reinforcing one’s views of children. The material can also be used in the groom- ing of children, reducing the inhibitions of children, and normalizing and desensitiz- ing the sexual demands
I removed the parenthetical citations because I’m not good at markdown, but you can find them in the linked paper.
Appreciate your linking this
deleted by creator
Previously you claimed it’s enabling the behavior. Is it? Or is it merely a speculation?
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.
It depends on whether you hold a world view where every person is valuable and needs help and understanding to become their best self or one where there are good and bad people and the baddies need to be punished and locked away so everyone else can live their life in peace.
deleted by creator
But if it’s just generated by AI there might be no involvement
deleted by creator
That’s a rather useless contribution to the discussion. The initial argument was a line of reasoning why artificial csam might be a benefit so people can vent their otherwise harmful behavior without harming actual people. You just flat out responded “it is enabling and doesn’t stop distribution”. So you just responded with “no, u wrong”. Care to tell us you reasons behind your stance?
deleted by creator
Norgur’s point is that you didn’t provide any reasoning why that should be the case.
deleted by creator
I’m not saying it’s better alternative, I’m saying it might not make sense to talk about it “involving minors”.
deleted by creator
That’s not picky about wording.
While I agree that stuff like that should not exist at all in no way whatsoever, there is a vast difference between it existing because someone abused a child, recorded that and thus scarred the child for life, or if someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting.
I like that take. It lends itself to comparison: The Saw movies were well-received (at first), even though most people would abhor hurting others in this way.
No if about it
deleted by creator
Don’t AI models need to be trained on the material they are trying to emulate?
No, not at all.
That’s why people like them, you can say make me a photo of a “monkey riding a pickle in space” or “a dog made of cheese” and it’ll make it despite obviously having no reference.
It only needs to be trained to know what things are, it can mix them freely.
Now I want to see said monkey…
Real
Cartoon
Animated
Haiku:
Cosmic pickle ride,
Monkey swings through starry tides,
Space whimsy untied.
These are great. What did you use for the animated version?
Well, butter my turnips! That’s not something I expected to see today and that cartoon version will eventually find its way into a shirt, I’m telling ya.
Prompt your heart out, it’s free.
https://playgroundai.com/
“Continue with Google”, thanks I’m good B-)