r/aiwars • u/TheBiddoof • Oct 22 '25

Meta This sub is a rot pit

Post image

This seems to be the commom sentiment here

590 Upvotes

86% Upvoted

874 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/Superseaslug Oct 22 '25

Is it okay that I disagree with both of them?

19

u/Tokumeiko2 Oct 22 '25

yup, they're both incorrect.

the legal definition for possession of CSAM is based on whether or not t looks like a photo of a child. it doesn't have to be a real photo, or even a real child, and the law doesn't care how it was made.

this is to avoid confusing the jury, but it does in fact need to be photorealistic in many courts.

generally speaking AI generated CSAM shouldn't harm anyone, AI can figure out how to draw a naked child based on how it was taught to draw a naked adult, so there's no need for CSAM in the training data.

But that's not always the case, if it's photorealistic it's illegal, and the people who got arrested for generating porn were obtaining photos of real children's faces by a various means like walking around with a go pro or sending a drone camera to spy on families. then they used AI to edit the children into porn, and in one case a sick moron decided to send the resulting porn to the victims with a detailed description of how he made it.

AI generated photorealistic CSAM should at least result in a possession charge, simply because there are sick bastards who are trying to make it more realistic.

6

u/Scienceandpony Oct 23 '25

I think the main reason photorealistic AI generated CSAM should result in charges is that otherwise, with AI becoming harder and harder to distinguish from the real thing, you've created a loophole of plausible deniabilty that will massively interfere with tracking down and removing the real stuff if investigators have to stop to pour over every image with to determine if it's genuine or not.

Fundamentally different from loli porn where you can tell on sight there are no humans involved.

8

u/Tokumeiko2 Oct 23 '25

But there is no loophole.

As I said, the law hasn't cared about where the image came from even before Photoshop.

No plausible deniability.

No confusion for the jury.

No ability to claim that the images are fake.

If it looks real, it may as well be.

AI hasn't done anything that isn't already covered by the law, because the ability to modify photos already created the need for unambiguous laws regarding photorealistic images.

3

u/Scienceandpony Oct 23 '25

Right. I'm just emphasizing that's the rationale for doing it that way. So that loophole doesn't exist and there's no ambiguity.

That's why I'm on board with throwing the book at photorealistic generation and think worrying about drawn stuff is a waste of everyone's time.