Sex offender banned from using AI tools in landmark UK case

It doesn't need csam data for training, it just needs to know what a boob looks like, and what a child looks like. I run some sdxl-based models at home and I've observed it can be difficult to avoid more often than you'd think. There are keywords in porn that blend the lines across datasets ("teen", "petite", "young", "small" etc). The word "girl" in particular I've found that if you add that to basically any porn prompt gives you a small chance of inadvertently creating the undesirable. You have to be really careful and use words like "woman", "adult", etc instead to convince your image model not to make things that look like children. If you've ever wondered why internet-based porn generators are on super heavy guardrails, this is why.

The whole point of diffusion models is that you can generate new concepts using training data. Models trained on any nsfw images can combine those concepts with any of its non-nsfw concepts. Of course, that's not to say there isn't CSAM in any training data, because there objectively has been in the past, but there doesn't need to be any to generate it.

Ai is able to fill in the last field in a table like "Old / young" vs "Clothed / naked" when given three of the four fields.

I don't know what the right answer is, but we provide substitutes for drug addicts to help them overcome their addictions. Methadone and nicotine patches come to mind.

Is it completely inconceivable that a similar tool would help with harmful sexual desires?

Current mental help methods for pedophiles include acceptance of their desires as normal, just not something to act on IRL.

It does not prohibit any fictional materials including children, nor can it make someone uninterested in children.

By stripping away safe outlets, we may come at risk of these people increasingly turning to real CSAM, which is way more harmful.

This sort of problem-solving acumen is how HIV became so widespread in Africa. Have you considered instead trying competence?

How will they even know he's doing it? It doesn't say they're monitoring his internet connection. And even if they were monitoring his internet connection, he could go to some public wifi hotspot and sit in a car and do it.

The bias with this approach is that it highlights those who did offend, while telling us nothing of those who didn't. This is often repeated throughout research as well.

It's very likely that a lot of child abusers did watch CSAM (after all, if you see no issue in child abuse, there's no issue for you in the creation of such imagery), but how many CSAM viewers end up being abusers and is there an elevated risk? That is the question.

I guess if we'd make an "ask a pedophile" thread instead of "ask a rapist", we could get some insights. Pedophiles, catch the idea!

You do realize that slippery slope argument is what's used when it comes to banning anything else, right?

"Can't legalize marijuana or people will start wanting to do meth" for example.

I think the solution here is not banning AI materials outright but to make them identifiable - even by means of digital signatures if you want.

For example, Stable Diffusion could insert particular piece of metadata into the picture containing the signature and proving the image is AI-generated, etc.

Without AI materials, said curiosity may lead people straight to the "real thing", and every darknet or even Telegram dweller will tell you it's frighteningly easy to find it even if you never intended to. With AI materials, people can have a chance to stop there.

Try to take your emotion from the discussion. There is finally a way for people with an illness (in this case pedophilia) to "satisfy" urges without causing harm to children. They need professional help which cannot be gained easily in the UK due to a certain government removing funds.

This isn't a give pedos stuff celebration, it's a discussion that needs to happen and if you're not mature enough to not get emotional, don't partake in the conversation.

It's not a matter of entitlement but of a real world harm. And generated imagery involving imaginary children does not constitude child sexual abuse.

I'd gladly give pedophiles generated imagery if that were to stop them from lurking in search of real CSAM, supporting the industry that creates a very tangible harm - actual child abuse.

And my life has nothing to do with either, so don't make it personal. I only share my opinion on what we should really do to protect children, not to protect our deeply rooted views.

There's no csam because there's no child. Critical thinking is hard I know.

Yes, just like the pictures of astronauts on horses were trained on an extensive collection of space derby pictures.

He used Stable Diffusion, which, for all we know, was NOT trained on CSAM.