Man Arrested for Creating Child Porn Using AI
Man Arrested for Creating Child Porn Using AI
A Florida man is facing 20 counts of obscenity for allegedly creating and distributing AI-generated child pornography.
A Florida man is facing 20 counts of obscenity for allegedly creating and distributing AI-generated child pornography, highlighting the danger and ubiquity of generative AI being used for nefarious reasons.
Phillip Michael McCorkle was arrested last week while he was working at a movie theater in Vero Beach, Florida, according to TV station CBS 12 News. A crew from the TV station captured the arrest, which made for dramatic video footage due to law enforcement leading away the uniform-wearing McCorkle from the theater in handcuffs.
It's hard to have a nuanced discussion because the article is so vague. It's not clear what he's specifically been charged with (beyond "obscenity," not a specific child abuse statute?). Because any simulated CSAM laws have been, to my knowledge, all struck down when challenged.
I completely get the "lock them all up and throw away the key" visceral reaction - I feel that too, for sure - but this is a much more difficult question. There are porn actors over 18 who look younger, do the laws outlaw them from work that would be legal for others who just look older? If AI was trained exclusively on those over-18 people, would outputs then not be CSAM even if the images produced features that looked under 18?
I'm at least all for a "fruit of the poisoned tree" theory - if AI model training data sets include actual CSAM then they can and should be made illegal. Deepfaking intentionally real under 18 people is also not black and white (looking again to the harm factor), but also I think it can be justifiably prohibited. I also think distribution of completely fake CSAM can be arguably outlawed (the situation here), since it's going to be impossible to tell AI from real imagery soon and allowing that would undermine enforcement of vital anti-real-CSAM laws.
The real hard case is producing and retaining fully fake people and without real CSAM in training data, solely locally (possession crimes). That's really tough. Because not only does it not directly hurt anyone in its creation, there's a possible benefit in that it diminishes the market for real CSAM (potentially saving unrelated children from the abuse flowing from that demand), and could also divert the impulse of the producer from preying on children around them due to unfulfilled desire.
Could, because I don't think there's studies that answers whether those are true.
I mostly agree with you, but a counterpoint:
Downloading and possession of CSAM seems to be a common first step in a person initiating communication with a minor with the intent to meet up and abuse them. I've read many articles over the years about men getting arrested for trying to meet up with minors, and one thing that shows up pretty often in these articles is the perpetrator admitting to downloading CSAM for years until deciding the fantasy wasn't enough anymore. They become comfortable enough with it that it loses its taboo and they feel emboldened to take the next step.
CSAM possession is illegal because possession directly supports creation, and creation is inherently abusive and exploitative of real people, and generating it from a model that was trained on non-abusive content probably isn't exploitative, but there's a legitimate question as to whether we as a society decide it's associated closely enough with real world harms that it should be banned.
Not an easy question for sure, and it's one that deserves to be answered using empirical data, but I imagine the vast majority of Americans would flatly reject a nuanced view on this issue.
The problem is empirical data cannot be morally or ethically found. You can't show a bunch of people porn and then make a statistical observation of whether those shown child porn are more likely to assault children. So we have to go forward without that data.
I will anecdotally observe anal sex, oral sex, and facials have gone up between partners as prevalence in porn has gone up. That suggests but does not prove a direct statistical harm caused by even "ethically produced CSAM."
CSAM possession is illegal because possession directly supports creation
To expound on this: prior to this point, the creation of CSAM requires that children be sexually exploited. You could not have CSAM without children being harmed. But what about when no direct harms have occurred? Is lolicon hentai 'obscene'? Well, according to the law and case law, yes, but it's not usually enforced. If we agree that drawings of children engaged in sexual acts aren't causing direct harm--that is, children are not being sexually abused in order to create the drawings--then how much different is a computer-generated image that isn't based off any specific person or event? It seem to me that, whether or not a pedophile might decide that they eventually want more than LLM-generated images is not relevant. Treating a future possibility as a foregone conclusion is exactly the rationale behind Reefer Madness and the idea of 'gateway' drugs.
Allow me to float a second possibility that will certainly be less popular.
Start with two premises: first, pedophilia is a characteristic that appears to be an orientation. That is, a true pedophile--a person exclusively sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children--does not choose to be a pedophile, any more than a person chooses to be gay. (My understanding is that very few pedophiles are exclusively pedophilic though, and that many child molesters are opportunistic sexual predators rather than being pedophiles.) Secondly, the rates of sexual assault appear to have decreased as pornography availability has increased. So the question I would have is, would wide availability of LLM-generated CSAM--CSAM that didn't cause any real, direct harm to children--actually decrease rates of child sexual assault?
Downloading and possession of CSAM seems to be a common first step in a person initiating communication with a minor with the intent to meet up and abuse them.
But this is like the arguments used to say that weed is a "gateway drug" by talking about how people strung out on harder drugs almost always have done weed as well, ignoring everyone who uses only weed. But this is even hazier because we literally have no real idea how many people consume that stuff but don't 'escalate'.
I remember reading once in some research out of Japan that child molesters consume less porn overall than the average citizen, which seems counter-intuitive, but may not be, if you consider the possibility that maybe it (in this case, they were talking primarily about manga with anime-style drawings of kids in sexual situations) is actually curbing the incidence of the 'real thing', since the ones actually touching kids in the real world are reading those mangas less.
I'm also reminded of people talking about sex dolls that look like kids, and if that's a possible 'solution' for pedophiles, or if it would 'egg on' actual molestation.
I think I lean on the side of 'satiation', from the limited bits of idle research I've done here and there. And if that IS in fact the case, then regardless of if it grosses me out, I can't in good conscience oppose something that actually reduces the number of children who actually get abused, you know?
but there’s a legitimate question as to whether we as a society decide it’s associated closely enough with real world harms that it should be banned.
Why should that be a question at all? If it causes harm, ban it. If not, don't. Being "associated with" should never be grounds for a legal statute.
generally a very good point, however i feel it's important to point out some important context here:
the pedophiles you're talking about in your comment are almost always members of tight knit communities that share CSAM, organize distribution, share sources, and most importantly, indulge their fantasies/desires together.
i would think that the correlation that leads to molestation is not primarily driven by the CSAM itself, but rather the community around it.
we clearly see this happening in other similarly structured and similarly isolated communities: nazis, incels, mass shooters, religious fanatics, etc.
the common factor in radicalization and development of extreme views in all these groups is always isolation and the community they end up joining as a result, forming a sort of parallel society with it's own rules and ideals, separate from general society. over time people in these parallel societies get used to seeing the world in a way that aligns with the ideals of the group.
nazis start to see anyone not part of their group as enemies, incels start to see "females" instead of women, religious fanatics see sinners...and pedophiles see objects that exist solely for their gratification instead of kids...
I don't see why molesters should be any different in this aspect, and would therefore argue that it's the communal aspect that should probably be the target of the law, i.e.: distribution and organization (forums, chatrooms, etc.)
the harder it is for them to organize, the less likely these groups are to produce predators that cause real harm!
if on top of that there is a legally available outlet where they can indulge themselves in a safe manner without harming anyone, I'd expect rates of child molestation to drop significantly, because, again, there's precedence from similar situations (overdoses in drug addicts, for example)
i think it is a potentially fatal mistake to think of pedophiles as "special" cases, rather than just another group of outcasts, because in nearly all cases of such pariahs the solutions that prove to work best in the real world are the ones that make these groups feel less like outcasts, which limits avenues of radicalization.
i thought these parallels are something worth pointing out.
Even worse, you don't need CSAM to start with. If a learning model has regular porn and nude reference model photography of people under 18 that are used for drawing anatomy, then they have enough information to combine the two. Hell, it probably doesn't even need the people under 18 to actually be nude.
Hell, society tends to assume any nudity inder 18 to be CSAM anyway, because someone could see it that way.
I don't know if it's still a thing, but I'm reminded of some law or regulation that was passed a while back in Australia, iirc, that barred women with A-cup busts from working in porn, the "reasoning" being that their flatter chests made them look too similar to prepubescent girls, lol...
Not only stupid but also quite insulting to women, imo.
Because any simulated CSAM laws have been, to my knowledge, all struck down when challenged.
To the best of my knowledge, calling drawn works obscene has been upheld in courts, most often because the artist(s) lack the financial ability to fight the charges effectively. The artist for the underground comic "Boiled Angel" had his conviction for obscenity upheld--most CSAM work falls under obscenity laws--and ended up giving up the fight to clear his name.
Oh, for sure. I'm talking about laws specifically targeted to minors. "Obscenity" is a catch-all that is well-established, but if you are trying to protect children from abuse, it's a very blunt instrument and not as effective as targeted abuse and trafficking statutes. The statutory schemes used to outlaw virtual CSAM have failed to my knowledge.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
That case was statutorily superseded in part by the PROTECT Act, which attempted to differentiate itself by...relying on an obscenity standard. So it's a bit illusory that it does anything new.
simulated CSAM
When I used this phrase, someone told me it described a nonexistent concept, and that the CSAM term existed in part to differentiate between content where children were harmed to make it versus not. I didn’t wanna muddy any waters but do you have an opposing perspective?
Deepfaking intentionally real under 18 people is also not black and white
Interesting. Sounds real bad. See what you mean about harm factor though.
I’m at least all for a “fruit of the poisoned tree” theory - if AI model training data sets include actual CSAM then they can and should be made illegal.
Now all AI is illegal. It's trained via scraping the internet, which will include CP as well as every other image.
This creates a significant legal issue - AI generated images have no age, nor is there consent.
The difference in appearance between age 16 and 18 is minimal, but the legal difference is immense. This is based entirely on a concept that cannot apply.
How do you define what's depicting a fictional child? Especially without including real adults? I've met people who believe that preferring a shaved pubic area is pedophilia. This is even though the vast majority of adult women do so. On the flip side, teenagers from the 70s and 80s would be mistaken for 40+ today.
Even the extremes aren't clear. Adult star "Little Lupe", who was 18+ in every single appearance, lacked most secondary sex characteristics. Experts testified in court that she could not possibly be an adult. Except she was, and there's full documentation to prove it. Would AI trained exclusively on her work be producing CSAM?
Well, also this is nothing new, unfortunately. See Lolis. Or maybe don't...
To paraphrase someone smarter than me, "I'll know it when I see it."
But naturally I don't want to see it. One of the things I miss the least about reddit is the constant image posts of anime characters, who may be whatever age they say but which are clearly representative of very young girls with big tiddies bolted on. It's gross, but it is also a problem thatsl's more widespread and nebulous than most people are willing to admit.
Just when trying to guess someone's age (we'll assume completely family-friendly and above board), think back to high school. How old did you and your peers look? Now go take a look at high schoolers today. They probably seem a lot younger than you did. The longer it's been (i.e. the older you are), the younger they look. Which means, "when I see it" depends entirely on the age of the viewer.
This isn't even just about perception and memory- modern style is based on/influenced heavily by youth. It's also continuing to move in the direction. This is why actors in their 30s - with carefully managed hair, skin, makeup, and wardrobe - have been able to convincingly portray high schoolers. This means that it's not just you - teens really are looking younger each year. But they're still the same age.
I don't see how children were abused in this case? It's just AI imagery.
It's the same as saying that people get killed when you play first person shooter games.
Or that you commit crimes when you play GTA.
Not a great comparison, because unlike withh violent games or movies, you can't say that there is no danger to anyone in allowing these images to be created or distributed. If they are indistinguishable from the real thing, it then becomes impossible to identify actual human victims.
There's also a strong argument that the availability of imagery like this only encourages behavioral escalation in people who suffer from the affliction of being a sick fucking pervert pedophile. It's not methadone for them, as some would argue. It's just fueling their addiction, not replacing it.
The difference is intent. When you're playing a FPS, the intent is to play a game. When you play GTA the intent is to play a game.
The intent with AI generated CSAM is to watch kids being abused.
When you're playing a FPS, the intent is to watch people being murdered.
How is this argument any different?
It's just AI imagery.
Fantasising about sexual contact with children indicates that this person might groom children for real, because they have a sexual interest in doing so. As someone who was sexually assaulted as a child, it's really not something that needs to happen.
Seems like then fantasizing about shooting people or carjacking or such indcates that person might do that activity for real to. There are a lot of car jackings nowadays and you know gta is real popular. mmmm. /s but seriously im not sure your first statement has merit. Especially when you look at where to draw the line. anime. manga. oil paintings. books. thoughts in ones head.
Well, the image generator had to be trained on something first in order to spit out child porn. While it may be that the training set was solely drawn/rendered images, we don't know that, and even if the output were in that style, it might very well be photorealistic images generated from real child porn and run through a filter.
Just say you don't get how it works.
we don't know that
might
Unless you're operating under "guilty until proven innocent", those are not reasons to accuse someone.
How was the model trained? Probably using existing CSAM images. Those children are victims. Making derivative images of “imaginary” children doesn’t negate its exploitation of children all the way down.
So no, you are making false equivalence with your video game metaphors.
While i wouldn't put it past Meta&Co. to explicitly seek out CSAM to train their models on, I don't think that is how this stuff works.
Wrong.
Do we know that AI child porn is bad? I could believe it would get them in the mood for the real thing and make them do it more, and I could believe it would make them go "ok, itch scratched", and tank the demand for the real stuff.
Depending on which way it goes, it could be massively helpful for protecting kids. I just don't have a sense for what the effect would be, and I've never seen any experts weigh in.
Do we know that AI child porn is bad? I could believe it would get them in the mood for the real thing and make them do it more, and I could believe it would make them go “ok, itch scratched”, and tank the demand for the real stuff.
From bits/articles I've seen here and there over the years about other things that are kind of in the same category (porn comics with child characters in them, child-shaped sex dolls), the latter seems to be more the case.
I'm reminded of when people were arguing that when Internet porn became widespread, the incidence of rape would go through the roof. And then literally the opposite happened. So...that pushes me toward hypothesizing that the latter is more likely to be the case, as well.
In Australia cartoon child porn is enforced in the same way as actual child porn. Not that it answers your question but it's interesting.
I'd imagine for your question "it depends", some people who would have acted on their urges may get their jollies from AI child porn, others who have never considered being pedophiles might find the AI child porn (assuming legal) and realise it's something they were into.
I guess it may lower the production of real child porn which feels like a good thing. I'd hazard a guess that there are way more child porn viewers than child abusers.
I seem to remember Sweden did a study on this, but I don't really want to google around to find it for you. Good luck!
Real question: "do we care if AI child porn is bad?" Based on most countries' laws, no.
There's like a lot of layers to it.
- For some, it might actually work in the opposite direction, especially if paried with the wrong kind of community around it. I used to moderate anime communities, the amount of loli fans wanting to lower the age of consent to 12 or even lower was way too high, but they only called people opposed to loli as "real predators", because they liked their middle-school tier arguments (which just further polarized the fandom when the culture wars started).
- Even worse might be the more realistic depictions might actually work against that goal, while with (most) loli stuff, at least it's obvious it's drawn.
- An often overseen issue is, data laundering. Just call your real CP AI generated, or add some GAI artifacts to your collection. Hungary bans too realistic drawings and paintings of that kind, because people even did that with traditional means, by creating as realistic tracings as possible (the calling CP "artistic nudes" didn't work out here at least).
You're missing the point. They don't care what's more or less effective for helping kids. They want to punish people who are different. In this case nobody is really going to step up to defend the guy for obvious reasons. But the motivating concept is the same for conservatives.
Wikipedia seems to suggest research is inconclusive whether consuming CSAM increases the likelihood of committing abuse.
There definitively is opportunity in controlled treatment. But I believe outside of that there are too many unknowns.
Depending on which way it goes, it could be massively helpful for protecting kids
Weeeelll, only until the AI model needs more training material..
That's not how it works. The "generative" in "generative AI" is there for a reason.
You need more training material to train a new AI. Once the AI is there, it produce as many pictures as you want. And you can get good results even with models that can be run locally on a regular computer.
I'm not sure if that is how it would work? But this is exactly the kind of thinking we need. Effects: intended plus unintended equals ???
Could this be considered a harm reduction strategy?
Not that I think CSAM is good in any way, but if it saves a child would it be worthwhile? Like if these pedos were to use AI images instead of actual CSAM would that be any better?
I've read that CSAM sites on the dark web number into the hundreds of thousands. I just wonder if it would be a less harmful thing since it's such a problem.
Many years ago (about 25) I read an article in a newspaper (idk the name, but it may have been the The Computer Paper, which is archived on line someplace}. This article noted that a study had been commissioned to show that cp access increases child abuse. The study seemed to show the opposite.
Here's the problem with even AI generated cp: It might lower abuse in the beginning, but with increased access it would 'normalise' the perception of such conduct. This would likely increase abuse over time, even involving persons who may not have been so inclined otherwise.
This is all a very complex. A solution isn't simple. Shunning things in anyway won't help though, and that seems to be the current most popular way to deal with the issue.
Actual pedophiles (a lot of CSA is abuse of power, not pedophilia - though to be clear fuck abusers either way) have a high rate of suicidal ideation because they think its as fucked up as everyone else. Of course we can't just say "sure AI material is legal now" but I could imagine a regulated system accessed via doctors akin to how controlled substances work.
People take this firm "kill em all" stance but these people just feel the way they do same as I do towards women or a gay man feels toward men. It just is what it is - we all generally agree gay isnt a choice and this is no different. As long as they dont act on it, I think we should be sympathetic and be open to helping them live a less tortured life.
I'm not 100% saying this is how we do it, but we should be open to exploring the issue instead of full stop demonization.
That makes sense. I don't know what a better answer is, just thinking out loud.
I guess my question is does access to regular porn make people not want to have real sex with another person? Does it 'scratch the itch' so to speak? Could they go the rest of their life with only porn to satisfy them?
It depends on the person. I feel like most people would be unsatisfied with only porn, but that's just anecdotal.
I honestly think ai generated csam isn't something the world needs to be produced. It's not contributing to society in any meaningful ways and pedophiles who don't offend or hurt children need therapy, and the ones who do need jailtime(and therapy, but Im in the US so thats a whole other thing). They don't 'need' porn.
My own personal take is that giving pedophiles csam that's AI generated is like showing alcohol ads to alcoholics. Or going to the strip club if you're a sex addict. It's probably not going to lead to good outcomes.
Lolicon fans in absolute shambles.
CANNED IN BANADA
Hey, remember that terrible thing everyone said would happen?
It's happening.
If from now on all child porn would be created artificially instead of by abusing children, wouldn't that maybe be a good thing?
Not trying to defend anything here, but where there is a want in the world, there is a market, you can't stop that. If artificial material makes it that even one less child is abused, I think it's worth having a discussion at least
If this thread (and others like it) have taught me aulnything is that facts be damned, people are opinionated either way. Nuance means nothing and it's basically impossible to have a proper discussion when it comes to wedge issues or anything that can be used to divide people. Even if every study 100% said Ai generated csam always led to a reduction in actual child harm and reduced recidivism and never needed any actual real children to be used as training material, the comments would still pretty much look the same. If the studies showed the exact opposite, the comments would also be the same. Welcome to the internet. I hope you brought aspirin.
My man. Go touch some grass. This place is no good. Not trying to insult you but it's for your mental health. These Redditors aren't worth it.
I was hoping to comment on this post multiple times today after I initially lost track of It and now I see you've covered about 75% of what I wanted to say. I'll post the rest elsewhere out of politeness. Thank you
To be clear, I am happy to see a pedo contained and isolated from society.
At the same time, this direction of law is something that I don't feel I have the sophistication to truly weigh in on, even though it invokes so many thoughts for me.
I hope we as a society get this one right.
We never do.
It's not really children on these pics. We can't condemn people for things that are not illegal yet
It's Florida. They will simply book him and then present him a deal for "only x years prison", which he'll take and therefore prevent this from going to court and actually be ruled upon.
Yeah people thinking this will make it to SCOTUS are dreaming, unless he happens to be rich.
I've always wondered the same when an adult cop pretends to be a kid only to catch pedos. Couldn't a lawyer argue that because there actually wasn't a child, there wasn't a crime?
Show me multiple (let's say 3+) small-scale independent academic studies or 1-2 comprehensive & large academic studies that support one side or another and I may be swayed, Otherwise I think all that is being accomplished is that one guys life is getting completely ruined for now and potentially forever over some fabrications and as a result he may or may not get help, but I doubt he'll be better off.
—My understanding was that csam has it's legal status specifically because there are victims that are hurt by these crimes and possession supports a broader market that faciltates said harm to these victims. It's not as easy to make a morality argument (especially a good one) for laws that effect everybody when there are no known victims.
Dude is gonna get fucked, but someone had to be the test case. Hopefully this gets some legal clarity.
Are you stupid? Something has to be in the training model for any generation to be possible. This is just a new way to revitalise kids
Not necessarily, AI can do wild things with combined attributes.
That said, I do feel very uncomfortable with the amount of defense of this guy, he was distributing this to people. If he was just generating fake images of fake people using legal training data in his own house for his own viewing, that would be a different story. The amount of people jumping in front of the bullet for this guy when we don't really know the details is the larger problem.
I must admit, amount of comments that are defending AI images as not child porn is truly shocking.
In my book, sexual images of children are not okay, AI generated or otherwise. Pedophiles need help, counseling and therapy. Not images that enable something I think is not acceptable in society.
I truly do believe that AI images should be subject to same standards as regular images in what content we deem appropriate or not.
Yes, this can be used to wrongfully prosecute innocent people, but it does not mean that we should freely allow AI-CP.
I generally think if something is not causing harm to others, it shouldn't be illegal. I don't know if "generated" CSAM causes harm to others though. I looked it up and it appears the research on whether CSAM consumption increases the likelihood of a person committing child abuse is inconclusive.
Agreed, especially considering it will eventually become indistinguishable.
Pedophiles need help, counseling and therapy. Not images that enable something I think is not acceptable in society.
I mean 30-40 years ago you could replace the word pedophile with homosexual and a vast majority of people would agree. I'm not defending pedophilia here but it's important to remember these people are born the way they are. Nothing is going to change that, new pedophiles are born every day. They will never go away. The same way you can't change gay or transgender people. Repressing sexual desire never works look at the priests in the Catholic Church. A healthy outlet such as AI generated porn could save a lot of actual children from harm. I think that should be looked into.
Look, I get what you are saying and I do agree. However, I don't think that comparing pedophilic relations to LGBTQ struggles is fair. One is consented relationship between consenting adults, other is exploitation and high probability of setup for lifelong mental struggles from young age.
I would like to know what source you have for claiming that pedophiles are "born the way they are."
We understand some of the genetic and intrauterine developmental reasons for homosexuality, being trans, etc. That has scientific backing, and our understanding continues to grow and expand.
Lumping child predators in with consenting adults smacks of the evangelical slippery slope argument against all forms of what they consider to be "sexual deviance." I'm not buying it.
You’re not kidding.
The only possible way I could see a defense if it were something like “AI CSAM results in a proven reduction of actual CSAM”.
But. The defenses aren’t even that!
They’re literally saying that CSAM is okay. I’m guessing a lot of these same comments would argue that deepfakes are okay as well. Just a completely fucked up perspective.
Cant speak for others but I agree that AI-CP should be illegal.
The question is how do we define the crime with our current laws? It does seem like we need a new law to address AI images. Both for things like AI-CP, revenge porn, and slanderous/misleading photos. (The Communist Harris and Trump with black people photos)
Where do we draw the line?
How do we regulate it?
Forced watermarks/labels on all tools?
Jail time? Fines?
Forced correction notices? (Doesn't work for the news!)This is all a slippery slope but what I can say is I hope this goes to court. He looses. Appeals. Then it goes all the way up to federal so we can have a standard to point to.
The shit wrong.
Step one in fixing shit.Iirc he was prosecuted under a very broad "obscenity" law, which should terrify everyone.
If no children were involved in the production of porn, how is it pedophilic? That's like claiming a picture of water has the same properties as water.
However, a picture of water makes me thirsty. But then again, there is no substitute for water.
I am not defending pedos, or defending Florida for doing something like that.
That might be a you thing. Pictures of water dont make me thirsty. I get the metaphor you are attempting to make though.
It's pedophillic because it's sexual images of children; fake or not does not change that. Drawn images of child pornography are still pedophillic.
The more important question is, is it CSAM? Whether drawn images that represent no real child are or not depends on the legal jurisdiction. Should drawn and AI generated child porn be legal or banned? I think the actual answer to that would require significant research into whether its existence acts as an outlet to prevent pedophiles from harming actual children, or whether it encourages their proclivities and makes them more likely to hurt actual children.
Preventing harm to children should be the goal, but actual research of the effects of simulated child porn vis-a-vis pedophiles harming actual children is as unlikely to happen as any other research into pedophilia
Arrested but for what crime? I absolutely agree that AI generated cp should be banned however it's not currently.
Even unrealistic depictions of children in a sexual context is considered CSAM.
In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined child pornography as material that "visually depicts sexual conduct by children below a specified age"
See New York v Ferber for more details
Iirc it was for Florida "obscenity" laws, which covers literally anything the state government finds objectionable.
I looked into this awhile back during a similar discussion.
Creating the content itself is not necessarily illegal if its ficticious.
Transmitting it over a public medium is very illegal, though.
So if you create your own ficticious child porn locally and it never gets transmitted over the internet, you'd maybe be okay legally speaking from a federal perspective anyway.
This guy transmitted it and broke the law.
It’s always the florida men
Florida Man strikes again...
Futurism - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Futurism:
MBFC: Pro-Science - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Good. I do not think society owes pedos a legal means to create CSAM.
Pretty sure the training data sets are CSAM.
Edit, to those downvoting me and not reading the article:
A 2023 study from Stanford University also revealed that hundreds of child sex abuse images were found in widely-used generative AI image data sets.
"The content that we’ve seen, we believe is actually being generated using open source software, which has been downloaded and run locally on people’s computers and then modified," Internet Watch Foundation chief technology officer Dan Sexton told The Guardian last year. "And that is a much harder problem to fix."
One doesn't need to browse AI generated images for longer than 5 seconds to realize it can generate a ton of stuff that you for absolute certainty can know wasn't on the training data. I don't get why people insist on the narrative that it can only output copies of what it has already seen. What's generative about that?
If you took a minute to read the article:
A 2023 study from Stanford University also revealed that hundreds of child sex abuse images were found in widely-used generative AI image data sets.
"The content that we’ve seen, we believe is actually being generated using open source software, which has been downloaded and run locally on people’s computers and then modified," Internet Watch Foundation chief technology officer Dan Sexton told The Guardian last year. "And that is a much harder problem to fix."
So not only do the online models have CSAM, but people are downloading open source software and I'd be very surprised if they weren't feeding it CSAM
If that's the basis for making it illegal, then all AI is illegal.
Which...eh maybe that's not such a bad idea
Since that study, every legit AI model has removed said images from their datasets and all models trained afterwards no longer include knowledge about those source images.
I know one AI model has specifically not included photos of underage people at all, to minimize the possibility this can happen even on accident. Making CSAM from an AI model is something anyone determined and patient enough can do with a good model trainer and a dataset of source images that have the features they want, even if the underage images are completely clean.
Making CSAM with an AI model is a deliberate act in almost every case... and in this case, he was arrested for distributing these images, which is super illegal for obvious reasons.
Honestly, I don't care if it is AI/not real, I'm glad that the man was arrested. He needs some serious help for sexualising kids.
You and I both know he's not going to get it. I have a kinda sympathy for ppl attracted to kids but refuse to act on it. They clearly know it's not normal and recognize the absolute life destroying damage they can cause if they act on it. That being said there's not many places you can go to seek treatment. Any institutions that advertised treatment would have ppl outside with pitchforks and torches.
Before anyone tries to claim I'm pro pedo you can fuck right off. I just wish it was possible for ppl who are attracted to kids and not out touching them to get some kind of therapy and medication to make them normal (or destroy their sex drive) before something terrible happens.
to get some kind of therapy and medication to make them normal
Hi, Psychologist here. Does society have strong evidence that therapeutic interventions are reducing rates of, say, the most common disorders of anxiety and depression? Considering that the rates of these are going up, I don't think we can assume there's a hugely successful therapy to help those attracted to CSA images to change. Psychology is not a very good science principally because it offers few extremely effective answers in the real world.
In terms of medication androgen antagonists are generally used. This is because lowering testosterone generally leads to a lower sex drive. Here is an article about those drugs, including an offender who asked for them: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/01/what-should-we-do-about-paedophiles
TW: the article contains discussion of whether offenders are even psychologically disordered, when set within a historical cultural context of child-marriage. This paragraph is two above the illustration of people trapped within concentric circular walls, and starts "In the 2013 edition ...".
Collis began to research the treatment and decided that it was essential to his rehabilitation. He believes he was born a paedophile, and that his attraction to children is unchangeable. “I did NOT wake up one morning and decide my sexual preference. I am sexually attracted to little girls and have absolutely no interest in sex with adults. I’ve only ever done stuff with adults in order to fit in with what’s ‘normal’.” For Collis, therefore, it became a question of how to control this desire and render himself incapable of reoffending.
[...]
Many experts support Aaron Collis’s self-assessment, that paedophilia is an unchangeable sexual preference. In a 2012 paper, Seto examined three criteria – age of onset, sexual and romantic behaviour, and stability over time. In a number of studies, a significant proportion of paedophiles admitted to first experiencing attraction towards children before they had reached adulthood themselves. Many described their feelings for children as being driven by emotional need as well as sexual desire. As for stability over time, most clinicians agreed that paedophilia had “a lifelong course”: a true paedophile will always be attracted to children. “I am certainly of the view,” Seto told me, “that paedophilia can be thought of as a sexual orientation.”
Brain-imaging studies have supported this idea. James Cantor, a psychiatry professor at the University of Toronto, has examined hundreds of MRI scans of the brains of paedophiles, and found that they are statistically more likely to be left-handed, shorter than average, and have a significantly lower density of white matter, the brain’s connective tissue. “The point that’s important for society is that paedophilia is in the brain at all, and that the person didn’t choose it,” Cantor told me. “As far as we can tell, they were born with it.” (Not that this, he emphasised, should excuse their crimes.)
[...]
Clinical reality is a little more complicated. “There’s no pretence that the treatment is somehow going to cure them of paedophilia,” Grubin told me. “I think there is an acceptance now that you are not going to be able to change very easily the direction of someone’s arousal.” Grubin estimates that medication is only suitable for about 5% of sex offenders – those who are sexually preoccupied to the extent that they cannot think about anything else, and are not able to control their sexual urges. As Sarah Skett from the NHS put it: “The meds only take you so far. The evidence is clear that the best treatment for sex offending is psychologically based. What the medication does is help people have a little bit of control, which then allows them to access that treatment.”
Some research on success rates:
Prematurely terminating treatment was a strong indicator of committing a new sexual offense. Of interest was the general improvement of success rates over each successive 5-year period for many types of offenders. Unfortunately, failure rates remained comparatively high for rapists (20%) and homosexual pedophiles (16%), regardless of when they were treated over the 25-year period. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11961909/]
Within the observation period, the general recidivism and sexual recidivism rates were 33.1% and 16.5%, respectively, and the sexual contact recidivism rate was 4.7%. [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306624X231165416 - this paper says that suppressing the sex drive with medication was the most successful treatment]
Men with deviant sexual behavior, or paraphilia, are usually treated with psychotherapy, antidepressant drugs, progestins, and antiandrogens, but these treatments are often ineffective. Selective inhibition of pituitary–gonadal function with a long-acting agonist analogue of gonadotropin-releasing hormone may abolish the deviant sexual behavior by reducing testosterone secretion. [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199802123380702 - this paper supports that lowering testosterone works best]
