Skip Navigation

Technology @lemmy.world

Lee Duna @lemmy.nz

1y ago

Child psychiatrist jailed after using AI to make pornographic deep-fakes of kids

www.theregister.com

Psychiatrist jailed over AI-made child sex abuse imagery

112 comments

Pretty sure the actual CP played a bigger role in the sentencing
- Yeah this is a scary, clickbaity headline meant to invoke a negative response about AI. AI is a tool, like a computer or pipe wrench. It can be used for good or bad.
  The sicko got what he deserved, but the AI bit is rather over-the-top.
  
  The part that freaks me out is more that he was in an influential position in children's lives and he was making images of the specific children who were his patients.
  
  Username totally checks out. Definitely not AI or a bot.
- CP? What does that mean?
  
  Child pornography.
- How come you are already using a short form, how often do you talk about this kind of thing???
  
  Its pretty well established what CP stands for.

In this case there are several crimes, but in the other one mentioned about a korean there is nothing, only possession of generated content arguing that there is high realism (someone could say the same even of a sketch). To imprison for acts that have neither victims nor any harm either directly or indirectly, is more aberrant than possessing that.
PS: I'm just talking about legality and rights, I know it's controversial and I'm sure someone has something to argue against it, but if you're going to accuse me of being a pedo just get lost you moron.
- People getting way overexcited about AI at the moment. If a crime or perceived crime even remotely is related to AI it becomes the main focus.
  Like the person who was hit by a self-driving car, the case was really about a hit and run drive that it hit the pedestrian first and throwing them into the self-driving car. Have the self-driving car not been there and it had been a human driver pretty much the same thing would have happened but they focus on the AI aspect.
  If I used an AI to commit fraud it was me that committed the fraud not the AI but you can be damn sight certain that people would get hung up on that aspect of the case and not the me committing a crime bit.
  It's the same as when Ford invented the transit van (I have no idea what the equivalent in the US market was). It was faster than most cars at the time, could carry heavier loads, and was physically larger. Inevitably it got used in a lot of bank robberies because the police literally couldn't keep up with it. And people started talking about maybe having a performance limit on vehicles, when really the actual solution was that everyone else just needed better cars. If they had actually implemented a performance limit, they would have held us back.
  
  Is it really fascists doing that? Literal fascists? I don't meet many of them in my daily life.
  
  If you have AI pornography of children, regardless of there being no real victim- you’re a fucking pedo.
  Period. End of argument.
  Get help.
  
  Attempting to normalize and destigmatize representations of child sexual abuse by calling it art is extraordinarily evil.
  
  Here's a piece of art by Balthus. It's of a young girl in a skirt, leg hiked up and you can see her underpants: https://www.wikiart.org/en/balthus/th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se-dreaming-1938
  This piece controversial, but evocative, thought-provoking and says something about an innocent time in our youth and the change of demeanor sexuality brings when we become aware.
  People may not like this, but if you can separate sexuality and understand that we were once "innocent" - meaning sex wasn't something we knew about, we just had these bodies we were told to hide in clothes, the painting takes on a whole new meaning.
  I'm not advocating for fake cheese pizza photos, fuck those sickos, but art can appear to be one thing on first glance and then take on a new meaning as we study and understand more.
  
  Your first passage about criminalizing art is 100% correct and 100% irrelevant. You cannot call porn art. Porn with adults, children, dogs, pumpkins - all that stuff is made for people to get off, not enjoy the emotions that real art provokes in people. Therefore we cannot compare criminalizing porn with criminalizing art.
  There are edge cases, of course, when art might be provocative and considered immoral, and maybe even illegal sometimes. But that would be edge cases, highly debated.
  
  Criminalizing the creation, possession, or viewing of entirely artificial artwork is beyond unethical; it's extraordinarily evil.
  No it isn't.
  I don't care if you find someone's artwork gross, troubling, distasteful, immoral, etc... that's art.
  No, it's child porn.
  Careful, any time I point this out, the fascists come out of the woodwork to call me a pedo.
  Can't imagine why.
  You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?
  So it's wrong for it to be based on one child, but according to you the AI "art" (as you keep calling it) is okay as long as there are thousands of victims instead?
  So you're cool with images of 6 year olds being penetrated by a 40 year old as long as "tHe Ai DrEw iT sO nObOdY gOt HuRt"? I guess you could just set it as your desktop and phone wallpaper and everything would be fine. Let me know how that works out for you.
  That's some stunning mental gymnastics right there.
- I agree with what you are saying.
  however, I think psychologists might not be a fan of giving them access to that material. I think the reason is because they would end up looking fore more and more extreme material and they could end up offending as a result of that
  
  Afaik we're still yet to find out whether viewing AI-generated material makes an individual look for real-life child abuse imagery.
  I believe viewing the latter allows many to keep real-life urges under control (might re-check materials on that), but it obviously comes with its own issues. If we can make AI generated child pornography, and if it doesn't make people go look for the "real stuff", we might actually make a very positive impact on child safety.

He used a web based stable diffusion to generate CP. Absolute genius level move 😂
- Things to never say before committing a crime:
  "Wait, let me sign in with my Google account first."
  
  Our legal system basically relies on the fact that criminals are that stupid.
  
  People have been caught making bomb threats using their own phones. Some people are just not bright enough to be able to survive in this world.
  It's for people like them that you have to have signs everywhere that say things like, don't stick your hand in the crushy grindy place, this hot water is hot, and don't drink bleach you'll die.
- You would be surprised how many absolutely idiotic Pedos are out there
  
  People in general really. Some of the stuff your average person does on the internet and their devices absolutely stumps me, and I'm not even that tech savvy.
  
  I really wouldn't be surprised. I've seen the average person, so many idiots.

They should become a Republican speaker. Then they'll get a TON of support from the Protect The Children crowd!
- Or a pastor so the church can relocate them to a fresh batch of victims.

why the FUCK
- Pedos are gonna pedo.

- Just chipping in with a technicical answer - a model can know what thing A is, also be shown a thing B, and compose the two. Otherwise models would never be able to display anything that doesn't exist yet.
  In this particular case, there's stock imagery of children online, and there's naked adults online, so a model can combine the two.
  This case seems to be AI fear mongering, the dude had actual CP....

Jesus fuck

- I mean for people that are providing a moral defense of this? Yeah, no, fuck them into the sun.
  But from a legal perspective, that's kind of the problem isn't it? Because no kids are involved in the actual production of the images, this creates a huge legal question - isn't this constitutionally protected in countries that have Freedom of Expression/Speech?
  I mean this is obviously vile and this person is a danger to children... but would this be illegal in the USA and Canada and other countries that have freedoms that make it very difficult to prosecute this kind of speech?
  There's also the wrinkle that it's being made of real people. Not just that it's kids in general, but real, actual, specific kids. Most countries have some form of "use of likeness" protections, but that's essentially making this into a copyright dispute, and a pretty grey one at that.
  
  Not sure what laws the states or Canada have, but it's considered child pornography if it's a depiction of CSA, regardless of whether it's an adult acting, or cartoons, or AI. I suspect at least some states in the US have similar laws.
  
  I dont mind loli hentai but thats as far as im ok with the moment it looks real its a problem imo.
- That's an extremely limited take on it that I would expect from Sunday rags. "I have made up my mind, and since I decide, I will simply make sure that nobody gets to discuss this."
  Thanks, reddit, can you fuck off back there now?
  
  Sorry we're not interested in discussing child pornography as art, because we're not disgusting pedophile apologists.
  We aren't making sure no one discusses this, you can have your nuanced discussions about child pornography with other pedophiles and pedo apologists, you won't be having it with us.

- It's worse than reddit up in here. At least the psychos calling AI CP "art" would be met with comments that would be upvoted even more, not down voted into the negatives.
  
  I’ve been reporting them. That shit can go back to Reddit where it’s encouraged.
- Pandora's box has been opened.
- Disgusting to know just how many people are sad, disgusting pieces of shit. CSAM is CSAM, virtual or real. The distinction does not matter.

This is the best summary I could come up with:
"As a child psychiatrist, Tatum knew the damaging, long-lasting impact sexual exploitation has on the wellbeing of victimized children," said US Attorney Dena J.
The trial evidence cited by the government includes a secretly-made recording of a minor (a cousin) undressing and showering, and other videos of children participating in sex acts.
"Additionally, trial evidence also established that Tatum used AI to digitally alter clothed images of minors making them sexually explicit," prosecutors said.
"Specifically, trial evidence showed that Tatum used a web-based artificial intelligence application to alter images of clothed minors into child pornography."
In prepared remarks [PDF] delivered at a US Senate subcommittee hearing earlier this year, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, "GPT-4 is 82 percent less likely to respond to requests for disallowed content compared to GPT-3.5, and we use a robust combination of human and automated review processes to monitor for misuse.
A recent report from investigative organization Balkan Insight says groups like Thorn have been supporting CSAM detection legislation to make online content scanning compulsory in part because they provide that service.
The original article contains 457 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
- Would be good if we could use this for porn. It's better than anyone actually being in porn. If AI takes over then less people would be trafficked and in the porn industry
  
  Implying nobody enjoys making porn.
  
  What would help with sex trafficking is legalizing and regulating prostitution and destigmatizing it.

A bit sensationalist there - article states he'd videoed minors in sexual acts. Probably what got him his well deserved prison stint.
Though I must say, the AI part alone should be enough to rule him out of a career around kids!
- I missed that paragraph when I skimmed the article. Thanks!
  The trial evidence cited by the government includes a secretly-made recording of a minor (a cousin) undressing and showering, and other videos of children participating in sex acts.
  Edit: also, I wondered how he got caught, but this was probably how.

I look forward to the inevitable news story about an inmate crushing his skull with an exercise weight.
- Yeah but they won't report on that.

112 comments