1y ago

AI-generated child sexual abuse images could flood the internet. A watchdog is calling for action

apnews.com AI-generated child sexual abuse images could flood the internet. A watchdog is calling for action

A new report warns that the proliferation of child sexual abuse images on the internet could become much worse if something is not done to put controls on artificial intelligence tools that generate deepfake photos.

Technology @lemmy.world

apnews.com /article/ai-artificial-intelligence-child-sexual-abuse-c8f17de56d41f05f55286eb6177138d2

81 27

You're viewing a single thread.

114 comments

Isnt it better the are AI generated than real? Pedophiles exist and wont go away and no one can control it. So best they watch AI images than real ones or worse
- AI needs training data.
  
  [This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
  
  Images, yes, but mixing concepts is a mixed bag. Just because the model can draw, say, human faces and dog faces doesn't mean it has the understanding necessary to blend those concepts. Without employing specialised models (and yes of course the furries have been busy) the best you'll get is facepaint. The pope at a beach bar doesn't even come close to exercising that kind of capability: The pope is still the pope and the beach bar is still the beach bar, and a person is still sitting there slurping a caipirinha.
  
  I mean if you train a model on porn with adult actors and on regular photos with children, it shouldn't be hard to generate the combination.
  You probably wouldn't even need any fancy training data but if you really wanted you could pick adult actors that look young or in other ways similar to the children to help the process.
  
  Knowing what a nude adult looks like doesn't mean that the model knows what a nude child looks like. I'm quite sure it's easy to generate disturbing images like that, but actual paedophiles I think won't be satisfied with child faces on small adult bodies.
  Ordinary deepfakes actually have a very similar problem: Sure you can take a picture of a celebrity and tell the AI to undress them -- but it won't be their actual body. The AI is going to be able to approximate their overall build but it's going to be a generic adult body, not the celebrity's body. Or, differently put, AI models aren't any better at undressing people with their eyes than teenagers.
  
  I see where you're coming from but that's a technical issue that will probably be solved in time.
  It's also really not a black and white; sure maybe you can see it isn't perfect but you'd still prefer it to content where you know no one was actually harmed.
  Despite what reputation people like that have (due to the simple fact of how reporting works), most are harmless like me and you and don't actually want to see innocent people suffer and would never act on their desires. So having a safe and harmless outlet might help.
  
  I see where you’re coming from but that’s a technical issue that will probably be solved in time.
  You cannot create information from nothing.
  So having a safe and harmless outlet might help.
  Psychologists/Psychiatrists are still on the fence on that one, I wouldn't be surprised if it depends on the person. And yes the external harm produced by AI images is definitely lower than that produced from actual CSAM, doubly so newly produced CSAM, but that doesn't mean that therapy, even in its current early stages, couldn't do even better.
  Differently put: We may be again falling into the trap of trying to find technological solutions to societal problems (well, this is /c/technology...). Which isn't to say that we shouldn't care at all about models trained on CSAM, but that's addressing symptoms, not causes. Ultimately addressing root causes is more important: The vast majority of paedophiles are not exclusive paedophiles, often they're not even really attracted to kids at all beyond having developed a fetish, they're rapists focussing on the most vulnerable, often due to having been victims of sexual abuse themselves.
  
  You cannot create information from nothing.
  Arguably that's exactly what generative AIs do. Which is not what you meant, but yeah. I was going more for like "given current progress and advancements in how we curate datasets and whatnot, there is no reason to believe that we won't have 100% undistinguishable AI-generated pictures eventually".
  We already know that you don't need to have stuff in the training dataset to have it show up meaningfully in the output.
  Psychologists/Psychiatrists are still on the fence on that one, I wouldn’t be surprised if it depends on the person. And yes the external harm produced by AI images is definitely lower than that produced from actual CSAM, doubly so newly produced CSAM, but that doesn’t mean that therapy, even in its current early stages, couldn’t do even better.
  100% agree there. What I would like to see is more research, but that's currently kinda impossible with CSAM being as criminalized as it is. Which is kinda sad.
  Therapy seems to work on most help-seeking people (and there are studies proving that), so this should be a last ditch effort.
  The rest of your post I don't agree with. It isn't really (definitely not exclusively) a societal problem - some people's brains are simply wired in a way that's just bad and there isn't much you can do with it, and either these people suffer by living with it, or they cause harm to others because of it. Both is bad.
  The vast majority of paedophiles are not exclusive paedophiles, often they’re not even really attracted to kids at all beyond having developed a fetish, they’re rapists focussing on the most vulnerable, often due to having been victims of sexual abuse themselves.
  Do you have any statistics proving this? It's exactly the bias that already makes non-acting pedophiles unlikely to seek help. Obviously these kinds of people are the ones you hear most about, but I wouldn't be so sure that they're the majority (even if they're most of the problem).
  My point is that if you take it as people who need help and actually manage to provide it, you should be able to get the number of abuse down overall except for the people who truly can't be helped. And it really doesn't matter much how you provide that help, even if it's morally questionable like using artificially generated CSAM.
  
  Do you have any statistics proving this?
  All my knowledge about this stuff goes back to what 2010, in the wake of this shit. I'm quite sure it's actual medical statistics though don't ask me where to find those 13 years down the line.
  My point is that if you take it as people who need help and actually manage to provide it
  We do actually have a programme specifically for this in Germany. Attempting to make run off the mill psychologists provide that kind of therapy isn't viable: The general issue is utter lack of rapport when your therapist can't decide whether they'd like to barf or strangle you.
  
  I dunno, you seen the stats on popularity of shemale porn? Pretty sure the human brain isn't that picky. It goes: "boobs check. Cock insertion check."
  
  That's a bisexual/bicurious double-whammy, not really comparable.
  
  I don't find men attractive at all and yet shemale porn gives me teh chubs
  
  I... don't care. Also you can find cock attractive without being into men. Or only find femboys attractive, but not others.
  
  I just leave this link here as counter point (somewhat NSFW):
  https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11un888/flamboyant_origami_fgures/
  A whole lot of weird stuff can be created by bashing things together with AI. The beauty of AI is after all that you can "edit" with high level concepts, not just raw pixels.
  And as for humans and dogs: https://imgur.com/a/TdXO7tz
  
  That's not concept mixing, also, it's not proper origami (paper doesn't fold like that). The AI knows "realistic swan" and "origami swan", meaning it has a gradient from "realistic" to "origami", crucially: Not changing the subject, only the style. It also knows "realistic human", now follow the gradient down to "origami human" and there you are. It's the same capability that lets it draw a realistic mickey mouse.
  It having understanding of two different subjects, say, "swan" and "human", however, doesn't mean that it has a gradient between the two, much less a usable one. It might be able to match up the legs and blend that a bit because the anatomy somehow matches, and well a beak is a protrusion and it might try to match it with the nose. Wings and arms? Well it has probably seen pictures of angels, and now we're nowhere close to a proper chimera. There's a model specialised on chimeras (gods is that ponycat cute) but when you flick through the examples you'll see that it's quite limited if you don't happen to get lucky: You often get properties of both chimera ingredients but they're not connected in any reasonable way. Which is different from the behaviour of base sdxl, which is way more prone to bail out and put the ingredients next to each other. If you want it to blend things reliably you'll have to train a specialised model using appropriate input data, like e.g. this one.
- Yeah exactly, I don't want to see it but the same goes for a lot of weird fetishes.
  As long as no one is getting hurt I don't really see the problem.
  
  As long as no one is getting hurt I don’t really see the problem.
  It'd be hard to actually meet that premise, though. People are getting hurt.
  Child abuse imagery is used as both a currency within those circles to incentivize additional distribution, which means there is a demand for ongoing and new actual abuse of victims. Extending that financial/economic analogy, seeding that economy with liquidity, in a financial sense, might or might not incentivize the creation of new authentic child abuse imagery (that requires a child victim to create). That's not as clear, but what is clear is that it would reduce the transaction costs of distributing existing child abuse imagery, which is a form of re-victimizing those who have already been abused.
  Child abuse imagery is also used as a grooming technique. Normalization of child sexual activity is how a lot of abusers persuade children to engage in sexual acts. Providing victimless "seed" material might still result in actual abuse happening down the line.
  If the creation of AI-generated child abuse imagery begins to give actual abusers and users of real child abuse imagery cover, to where it becomes more difficult to investigate the crime or secure convictions against child rapists, then the proliferation of this technology would make it easier to victimize additional children without consequences.
  I'm not sure what the latest research is on the extent to which viewing and consuming child porn would lead to harmful behavior down the line (on the one hand, maybe it's a less harmless outlet for unhealthy urges, but on the other hand, it may feed an addictive cycle that results in net additional harm to society).
  I'm sure there are a lot of other considerations and social forces at play, too.
  
  I mean you could also go with a more sane model that still represses the idea while allowing some controlled environment for people whom it can really help.
  You could start by not prosecuting posession, only distribution. So it would still be effectively "blocked" everywhere like it's (attempted to be) now, but distributing models for generation would be fine.
  Or you could create "known safe" (AI generated) 'datasets' to distribute to people, while knowing it was ethically created.
  is used as both a currency within those circles to incentivize additional distribution, which means there is a demand for ongoing and new actual abuse of victims
  A huge part of the idea is that if you create a surplus of supply it cannot work as a currency and actual abuse material will be drowned out and not wort it to create for the vast majority of people - too risky and irrelevant if you have a good enough alternative.
  You're definitely right though that there would have to be more considerations.
  
  You seem to think it's some kind of human right and people are entitled to have fapping material provided for them. No one is hurt if people don't have fapping material.
  
  There is an argument to be made that allowing people with unhealthy desires a safe and harmless outlet, they will be less compelled to go with the harmful option.
  And, actually, I kinda want to disagree with the premise too. Even if it was provably true that noone gets hurt if there wasn't porn, you can flip the question; why should it be banned if it doesn't hurt anyone? Do you want to live in a world where anything that's perceived as bad is just outright banned without much thought?
  
  You are already making assumptions about whether or not producing artificial CP is harmful. But in truth nobody knows. And studies have shown that media indeed does influence us. It's quite naive to assume that somehow just porn doesn't.
  
  Artificial or not, this isn't really a new idea. A similar argument can be made for existing CSAM and providing it under controlled conditions.
  And yeah, "nobody knows", in huge part because doing such a study would be highly illegal under current CSAM laws in most parts of the world. So, paradoxically, you can't even legally study how to help those people, even if they actively want to be helped and want to help you do research on it.
  Edit: Also, I'm not really making any assumptions; I literally said "there is an argument to be made". I'm not making that argument because I don't actually know enough. Just saying that it's an option that should be explored.
  
  existing CSAM and providing it under controlled conditions
  This would go directly against the needs of the victims.
  I was able to find an organisation which helps pedophiles and also conducts anonymous surveys. The pedophiles themselves reported they feel addicted to CSAM, most have come first in contact when they were minors themselves and nearly half want to seek contact to children after watching CSAM.
  Survey of German pedophiles
  Survey of Russian pedophiles
  Research about the surveys
- I guess it depends on what pedophilia is in the end of how it's developed.
  If it's more like a sexual preference then it's probably there already when someone is born and not changeable, but if it's more like a fetish then those are (afaik) related to experiences and exposures while growing up and actually can change and develop over time - and in that case it could be really dangerous to have that kind of material floating around freely.
- We absolutely can make pedos go away.

114 comments