Pedo party vote NO
(midwest.social)
Libertarianism and its consequences
Hm. Wonder what those models were trained on. Oh well, guess we'll never find out
This is why bills are named dumb shit like The Saving Puppies Act so that you look bad for voting against it.
I have no idea what was actually in this one, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised either way.
the childrens wellbeing and schools act
I went and found it: https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills261/hlrbillspdf/5399H.03D.pdf
It's one of those bills blocking social media for children as well as banning deepfakes of minors.
Yeah there's loads of reasons not to support a bill which don't mean you don't support the idea.
Suppose a bill said billionaires should be taxed 50% of their wealth but only if their name doesn't start with "E".
Perfection is the enemy of progress.
Tax 99% of them and then introduce another bill to tax the ones starting with "E".
You could pass the bill and then do another bill to fix the other issues.
I'm against pork in bills and feel like they should not contain more than one issue. But it is all designed that way for a "reason". Don't like the idea of a bill, well add some pork and now you can be against that.
Wait, what? is this real?
User was a AI-CSAM apologist
In order for generative AI to produce a realistic image of a naked child it has to be taught what naked children look like. Real children were abused to train the AI.
We already have humans who can draw CSAM without any actual victims, and the reason for banning such material is that it may encourage future child abuse, which is a very realistic and reasonable concern in my opinion. It's possible that fictitious child abuse may have value in providing an outlet for those suffering from pedophilia, but I personally think that it should be regulated in accordance with the opinions mental health professionals and not left up to the concept of free speech.
Regarding the comparison to objections made against homosexuality, we have to look at what is meant by harm to society. In the case of CSAM it's that real children may be harmed. In the case of gay media it's that more people might be openly gay. These are both plausible outcomes, but the levels of harm are very different. It's fine to risk more people being gay because it doesn't hurt anything; it's not fine to risk children being harmed.
That's not how generative AI works. It doesn't need to be trained on CSAM. If you created a fictional futuristic sport where people flew around in cubes and shot geese at each other in a stadium made entirely of living flesh, an AI model will be able to produce images of that. It was never trained for those images, but it will be able to produce them.
I also want to point out, similar to the weird zoophelia ask Lemmy question a few days ago; this is weird because wanting this material is so far outside the bounds of the social contract it not only breaches it, but also makes you ask, "This guy is generating child pornagraphy! What the fuck else is he doing?" Even if no children were harmed (which obviously not the case) the fact that you even made that an option, and then they took it tells you enough
Um, the kids in the videos that such a gross AI is trained on? JFC.
The “victims” are the kids who get hurt after this shit is normalized.
No, that shit is gross
Stop justifying kiddie porn you sick fuck, it’s always wrong even if you play little games around why you want it to be ok
The children abused whose CSAM was added to the dataset.
That's not the case here, which is what they're voting on.
Meh. There's a strong argument to be made that AI CSAM could reduce harm to actual children. The science isn't in favour of what we'd think is the common sense option.
Edit: To be clear - I'm not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I'm saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.
I think this topic is really a bit much for me right now, but I do want to say that your use of the term "MAP" has me questioning your motives. I associate it with people making pride flags and trying to legitimize child abuse. I do have sympathy for people afflicted with pedophilia, however, and I would like for stigma surrounding the disorder to decrease so that sufferers can seek help and set boundaries more freely. Could you please defend use of the term? I don't want to be close-minded about it.
To my understanding, people with this issue use the term to differentiate themselves (i.e. attracted to minors, but haven't acted on those impulses) from those who have acted on said impulses (pedophiles). Given the huge stigma connected to the label, I can perfectly understand why they'd want to make that distinction very clear.
I've heard this is an assumption. I've never heard it backed by anything. The argument was made to me 25 years ago in reference to anime/drawings of CSAM, suggesting that paedophiles would "settle" for the fake and not harm children.
I assume — I have no proof either way — it would just normalise their behaviour and they would continue to offend. I feel like you could give them access to everything that's already been made (even the real stuff, for the sake of the argument) and they would still want to harm actual children. I don't think fuelling their fantasies is going to make them stop trying to fulfill them.
The argument is based on the relationship between legal porn and prevalence of sex crimes against adults; as pornography becomes easier to access, sex crimes go down.
Also supported by the negative correlation between violent video games and real world violence.
This is also supported by the negative correlation of violent media in general and violent crimes.
While one could make the argument that because pedophiles have different brain chemistry that they would not be as affected as the general population, there's no actual evidence of this. Additionally is the curious fact that most child sex offenders are not pedophiles, so there would be a limited reduction in actual crimes against children while allowing obscene material that could harm the general public.
Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49644341_Pornography_and_Sex_Crimes_in_the_Czech_Republic
https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-csam-pedophilia/
https://virped.or/ g/vpp20240204/ (Feedback from actual MAPs)
To be clear - I'm not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I'm saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.
But then how will we know who to put in charge and listen to about Jesus?
Is there?
Show us some references to the science.
Following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49644341_Pornography_and_Sex_Crimes_in_the_Czech_Republic
https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-csam-pedophilia/
https://virped.or/ g/vpp20240204/ (Feedback from actual MAPs)
To be clear - I'm not saying the science is in favour of ANY option, I'm saying that due to the stigma on this topic, we are severely lacking in hard data. All we have are hypotheses. It would be nice if people could stop sending death threats to researchers and social workers who try to bring up the well being of MAPs as a topic of discussion and research.
What's really important is that no pedophiles be allowed near positions of power.
No argument there.
Any criminal, but yes.
Yeah. Nobody the police dislike should ever be in charge of stuff.
I guess I should have specified to those who have committed violent crimes such as rape, murder, assault or have in one form or another committed theft such as running Ponzi schemes, tax evasion, insider trading and so on, not like jaywalking. I don't think just pedos should be blocked from being public officials.
Oh, so theft is bad now? Drug dealing too I bet? But only if its convicted, so if my last name were savkler it would be fine, but if it were Ross it wouldn't?
Now? I'm pretty sure theft has always been bad even before society or written law. Of course illegal drug dealing is bad, even over prescription if legal drugs where the addictive quality has been covered up in studies is bad. No it's bad if it's not convicted. Like murder is still bad even if the murderer isn't convicted.
So what's the actual problem you're getting at? It clearly isn't 'criminals', though does overlap somewhat.
almost certainly trolling..... but i'll bite.
any criminal ?
There shouldn't be criminals in positions of power is that person's point.
And as I said, any criminal?
The answer lacks specificity to the point that it's useless. Which is why im assuming intentional trolling.
You do realize that states are essentially just large scale criminal organizations right?
The US government allows cartels to smuggle drugs past the border. We only know about this thanks to the internet.
What's a criminal?
IIRC the increase of deepfake images has made investigations significantly harder if that can be used as a legal excuse. In the UK it doesn't matter if it's real or fake, it's still a crime.
Yes, the legal issues would be a huge can of worms. I'm not advocating for free use of AI CSAM, I'd just like some actual research to be done instead of going with the 'think of the children' kneejerk reaction.
In this case, thinking of the children is a good thing and should be the primary thought.
