Man arrested for AI created child porn

Will be extremely difficult to prosecute because it comes down to AI taking a bunch of 1s and 0s to create a picture that doesn't involve an actual child.

 

Yeah as sick as it is - who is the victim here?

 

I have no idea if it would play out like this but if it were to cut down on the amount of real child porn being created/distributed could it be a GOOD thing?

 

Definitely a lot to think about.

My initial thoughts are that this is yet another unforeseen result of AI of what will be untold more and unless we want more unintended negative consequences (I think we can all agree this qualifies as one), we need to start regulating and legislating guardrails.

Democracy is inherently reactive so it's unsurprising things like this arise, but it's time to start reacting.

 

I remember the Ashcroft case, below, and trying to think how it might be applied today and whether there are distinctions from the most recent arrests. Different Court today. Plus, it’s getting more and more difficult to distinguish AI from images of real people.

{{meta.pageTitle}}

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) prohibits "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment trade association, and others filed suit, alleging that the "appears to be" and "conveys the impression" provisions are overbroad and vague and, thus, restrain works otherwise protected by the First Amendment. Reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747.

****

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the two prohibitions described above are overbroad and unconstitutional. The Court found the CPPA to be inconsistent with Miller insofar as the CPPA cannot be read to prohibit obscenity, because it lacks the required link between its prohibitions and the affront to community standards prohibited by the obscenity definition. Moreover, the Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Provisions of the CPPA cover "materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in our precedents or in the law of the First Amendment" and abridge "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech," wrote Justice Kennedy.

 

An uncomfortable but very valid question.

 

I have no sympathy for the accused. We infringe very few speech options for adults in the US. This is one which should have zero tolerance. No loopholes.

 

If generative AI can be liable for copyright infringement, I think they should be held liable for this.

On a similar subject, I’m a huge fan of Louisiana’s new law which allows medical castration for adults that are found guilty of sexual assault on a person 12 or under. Should be like the death penalty, where it only occurs after a full appeals process has gone through.

With a 5 year old and 7 year old currently, I just can’t don’t have any sympathy here.

Louisiana becomes first state to allow surgical castration as punishment for child molesters

 

My first thought is isn’t this a slippery slope but all previous slippery slope arguments I have heard of have been spurious.

 

Seems it could work just like a fake sting.
There isnt a real child involved if the cops set up a fake encounter. It is still a crime though.

 

Maybe they can create an AI guillotine for him

 

It’s hard enough to distinguish some of the AI images now; we don’t need people using it as defense for actual child pornography where they can taint the jury’s mind on reasonable doubt. There may not be harm to an actual child with one AI photo but I don’t think it’s something that should be seen as acceptable in society and allowing AI child porn can create a culture of acceptance we should never entertain.

 

Yep. That’s likely what they will use it for. I’m not sure how I feel about it. In these circumstances before it’s always been real. If they are not real images and there is any indication that the perps
know they are not real images this starts wandering into minority report territory.

 

Or... just remove his ability to move around freely in the real world.

 

These tech bros really have no control over the monster they are creating.

“deregulation + section 230 = kiddie porn”

make that a bumper sticker.

 

Good point.

If the government can regulate your uterus, they can certainly regulate 1’s and 0’s.

There will be a divergence in society of the Luddites and the technophiles.

Sign up for your cybertronic implants that beam the porn straight into your hypothalamus.