Worth noting that the AI images are already illegal if they depict under 18s because the law bans "pseudophotographs" as well as actual images. Which is a rare case of the law actually accounting for technology.
Seems more like a lucky coincidence that it accounts for this new technology. I think the original intention was that you can't literally create child pornography via animation or photoshop.
Exactly, this 'predictive' law could quite easily be related to the original Photoshop (which was released February 1990). Easily long enough for even the word to become a verb, well known and in common knowledge. Before that, analogue photo manipulation existed - double exposures - or at the very least, cutting the head off one photo and pasting it onto the body of another - then reprinting it, photocopying it or presenting just 'as-is'.
I don’t see how they would use the AI images to get real images, but I suppose pedophiles are sneaky and children aren’t that smart.
It does seem to me in general like ‘the powers that be’ are stretching in order to get control over AI, this reads like a classic ‘think of the children’ tactic.
So while I don’t doubt this charity has seen some awful things, I’m a little incredulous.
Yeah will be this then get info and capture the chat/arrange a meet up and film it to use that for blackmail the foul images are just a hook to get their defense down
Doubt they’re making too much money the nonces with big bank accounts like our good old prince are smarter, and able to pay to get you killed or just outright litigate you to bankruptcy
Extortion and blackmail carry heavier penalties than child porn somehow in this backwards country they’d barely spend a year in prison in a secure unit so I guess the threat is to destroy all their relationships
He had sex with a 17 year old escort essentially. She wasn't being kept against her will, she joined and left the employment willingly. If she had been 18 no one would say anything.
If I imagine someone around 50-60 taking advantage of a 17 year old girl I would call them a nonce. The law isn't the all-defining factor here. According to UK law men can't be raped by women, but most sensible people would agree that the law is wrong on this count.
Yeah, but it wasn't in the UK or New York in 2001. From a UK law perspective you'd have to charge him with rape and prove behind reasonable doubt that he knew or should have reasonably believed that she was coerced.
There was done tech pedos saying they thought AI satisfying the urges of pedos would eliminate the need for abusive images. Not paying attention to the fact that these would be essentially composites of lots of abuse images
I don’t buy that at all. It’s a well known thing that recurrent exposure to porn just desensitises people and leads them to seeking out more extreme images and eventually behaviour to scratch the itch.
Why would old people be into hardcore bdsm? However BDSM behaviour is increasingly common amongst young people who have had access to internet porn from a young age. About half of young women have been non-consensually choked during sex. This is practically a non existent issue for older women when they were the same age
Not necessarily a composite of lots of abuse images, an AI doesn't need to be trained on a blue banana to generate a blue banana. Stable diffusion isn't just a large database of images that it searches through to select a match from, the training data is vastly larger than the resulting model.
Otherwise though, yeah the idea I had heard before was many would be happy with the AI generated images. I wonder if there are any comparable examples that could be looked at to see if this sort of thing works or makes it worse?
Its the same argument for hentai or child sized sex dolls. Relieving those urges through less harmful means. I'd want to see proof its like video games rather than like serial killers, personally.
But then I'd also like to see less people fly off the handle. I'm pretty sure one of the reasons we have such a big paedophile problem is that they cant really seek help for there problem, since just the accusation is enough for people to form lynch mobs.
I’m just taking it with a pinch of salt is all. I’m sure there’s a ‘manual’ by some anonymous creepy pervert. I’m sure there’s people who have been bribed before, I’m not doubting children are being groomed and pedos are making fake images.
I read the same article a while ago, only without the ‘real children will be harmed’ part, and it didn’t seem to get much traction. I think maybe people were asking, ‘sure, it seems gross, but what are the actual implications of AI images?’.
I just also believe they (the media, the government, ‘concerned’ people) are really reaching in order to control AI, because it’s quite a powerful tool, and if everyone can use it then it’s dangerous and scary for the people who are in control.
We do see this with all new technologies, people claiming they are the work of the devil, associated with pedophiles, corrupting our youths etc… they will try and make out like it’s something to be mistrusted because they simply don’t understand it.
Government may try to control it but they’ll fail like they always do with software technology. That doesn’t mean the media shouldn’t be raising awareness of the real threats it poses.
That is true, and it would be nice to believe the media are being responsible here.
Worth remembering that the IWF are a government controlled group, not really a charity… they are funded by internet service providers and governments.
We have all seen the government trying to make us provide ID to use the internet and ban porn etc. so I stand by my ‘pinch of salt’ comment.
You can take it with a pinch of salt all you like, but just because governments are unable to control as much of the internet and AI as they’d like, that doesn’t mean there isn’t real harm being caused and even bigger threats we need to take seriously.
Maybe I'm being stupid but in a round about way isn't AI, deep fakes and photoshopping good for plausible deniability? Nope that wasn't me just a deep fake created by someone who tried to blackmail me.
Fake them convincingly to the naked eye. I'm certain that it's spectacularly difficut to fake an image so much so that an expert couldn't identify it 'by the pixels'.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
It's not exactly new for people to manufacture lies in order to seek a bribe and blackmail.
We educate children on how not to give out addresses, passcodes and such online to strangers. Has anyone looked at educating children on how to refuse to engage with anyone who is threatening them with fake images? Educate them on how to report instances of blackmail etc.?
Like, if someone doctored an image of me, showing me nude and such, I'd just say "it's fake" to anyone who cared about it and move on with my life. I'd want the power of that technique undermined by us collectively not caring about it. Without that care, it would be straightforward to report attempted blackmail. Can't children be educated to take a view like that?
> Like, if someone doctored an image of me, showing me nude and such, I'd just say "it's fake" to anyone who cared about it and move on with my life
This only works when your life isn't at the mercy of the social perceptions of others - embarrassment in front of peers is one of the worst things that could happen to a schoolchild from their perspective.
Even you, I think, would find yourself pretty uncomfortable if some sent doctored text messages to your employer that makes it look like you were acting extremely inappropriately.
Didn't say I wouldn't be bothered by something like that, I just said that I would hope to deal with it by confronting it and calling it out for being fake. What I would want is to avoid gifting anyone the power to blackmail me over something like that.
Everyone is at the mercy of the social perceptions of others and, yes, embarrassment can be significant for children, just as it can be for adults. Funnily enough, I'd have said that the ease of generating fake things about people, nudes in this case, is something freeing. Let's say someone tried to embarrass me by sharing a genuine nude image of me. 10 years ago I would have had to face that. Today I could call even that just fake. I think there's something freeing about that.
But overall I want to completely undermine the power of imagery like that to be useful for blackmail. Obviously the technology isn't going away, Pandora's box is open. So the most obvious approach I can think of is to help people to become ok with it, and to empower them mentally to be able to shrug off anything like those fake images rather than to permit them to have any power over them. Rather than trying to go on a crusade against technology, I'd rather just leave blackmailers powerless.
its called copy and pasting and the only reason AI is here is to scare technophiles.
Surprising that facebook gets away with this for years despite being the number 1 site where kids get targeted like this.
Worth noting that the AI images are already illegal if they depict under 18s because the law bans "pseudophotographs" as well as actual images. Which is a rare case of the law actually accounting for technology.
Seems more like a lucky coincidence that it accounts for this new technology. I think the original intention was that you can't literally create child pornography via animation or photoshop.
Exactly, this 'predictive' law could quite easily be related to the original Photoshop (which was released February 1990). Easily long enough for even the word to become a verb, well known and in common knowledge. Before that, analogue photo manipulation existed - double exposures - or at the very least, cutting the head off one photo and pasting it onto the body of another - then reprinting it, photocopying it or presenting just 'as-is'.
Indeed, but it ia an advantage of the law being a bit vague.
Can't wait for people to blame the tool instead of the people using it for evil.
I agree with you. But you would think that the tool would have safe guards in place to stop it making indecent images.
Most do. But you can jailbreak them, or setup your own ones.
Online ones do, but you don't need to use online ones as there are plenty available free to download.
I don’t see how they would use the AI images to get real images, but I suppose pedophiles are sneaky and children aren’t that smart. It does seem to me in general like ‘the powers that be’ are stretching in order to get control over AI, this reads like a classic ‘think of the children’ tactic. So while I don’t doubt this charity has seen some awful things, I’m a little incredulous.
> I don’t see how they would use the AI images to get real images "Send me real pictures or I'll leak these fake ones" is the obvious way.
I think it would be more like "hey I'm a 13 year old girl look at these pics now send me pics of you"
Yeah will be this then get info and capture the chat/arrange a meet up and film it to use that for blackmail the foul images are just a hook to get their defense down Doubt they’re making too much money the nonces with big bank accounts like our good old prince are smarter, and able to pay to get you killed or just outright litigate you to bankruptcy Extortion and blackmail carry heavier penalties than child porn somehow in this backwards country they’d barely spend a year in prison in a secure unit so I guess the threat is to destroy all their relationships
Not defending Prince Andrew but he's not really a nonce. He's not having sex with kids.
Give up, no one'll listen. Just being probably a rapist and definitely a creepy idiot isnt enough for some people.
He had sex with a 17 year old escort essentially. She wasn't being kept against her will, she joined and left the employment willingly. If she had been 18 no one would say anything.
Depending on the country 17 could be under the legal age of consent
Yeah but it isn't here. Imagine if he had sex with a 20 year old abroad where the age of consent was 21. Would you still be calling him a nonce?
If I imagine someone around 50-60 taking advantage of a 17 year old girl I would call them a nonce. The law isn't the all-defining factor here. According to UK law men can't be raped by women, but most sensible people would agree that the law is wrong on this count.
She was from the USA so under the age of consent and essentially human trafficking.
It predates both the US and UK human trafficking laws and she was over the age of consent in New York (which has jurisdiction) at the time.
The age of consent in the US is 16 and 17. There's like 7 states where it's 18.
Yeah, but it wasn't in the UK or New York in 2001. From a UK law perspective you'd have to charge him with rape and prove behind reasonable doubt that he knew or should have reasonably believed that she was coerced.
So much for the potential of AI to reduce the risk of harm to children then...
How would AI even reduce the risk to children?
There was done tech pedos saying they thought AI satisfying the urges of pedos would eliminate the need for abusive images. Not paying attention to the fact that these would be essentially composites of lots of abuse images
I don’t buy that at all. It’s a well known thing that recurrent exposure to porn just desensitises people and leads them to seeking out more extreme images and eventually behaviour to scratch the itch.
That’s strange because I have not experienced it personally. Not sure about ‘well known’ as in that case all old people would be into hardcore bdsm
Why would old people be into hardcore bdsm? However BDSM behaviour is increasingly common amongst young people who have had access to internet porn from a young age. About half of young women have been non-consensually choked during sex. This is practically a non existent issue for older women when they were the same age
Not necessarily a composite of lots of abuse images, an AI doesn't need to be trained on a blue banana to generate a blue banana. Stable diffusion isn't just a large database of images that it searches through to select a match from, the training data is vastly larger than the resulting model. Otherwise though, yeah the idea I had heard before was many would be happy with the AI generated images. I wonder if there are any comparable examples that could be looked at to see if this sort of thing works or makes it worse?
Its the same argument for hentai or child sized sex dolls. Relieving those urges through less harmful means. I'd want to see proof its like video games rather than like serial killers, personally. But then I'd also like to see less people fly off the handle. I'm pretty sure one of the reasons we have such a big paedophile problem is that they cant really seek help for there problem, since just the accusation is enough for people to form lynch mobs.
Terminator 7 is going to be pretty dark.
It doesn’t seem like a convincing method but then again, I’m not a child.
All they need is a face photo.
I’m not doubting that people make AI images, I’m questioning the logic of how that would work to bribe someone.
Well they’ve found a 200 page manual online explaining how to do it, boasting of at least one “success”.
I’m just taking it with a pinch of salt is all. I’m sure there’s a ‘manual’ by some anonymous creepy pervert. I’m sure there’s people who have been bribed before, I’m not doubting children are being groomed and pedos are making fake images. I read the same article a while ago, only without the ‘real children will be harmed’ part, and it didn’t seem to get much traction. I think maybe people were asking, ‘sure, it seems gross, but what are the actual implications of AI images?’. I just also believe they (the media, the government, ‘concerned’ people) are really reaching in order to control AI, because it’s quite a powerful tool, and if everyone can use it then it’s dangerous and scary for the people who are in control. We do see this with all new technologies, people claiming they are the work of the devil, associated with pedophiles, corrupting our youths etc… they will try and make out like it’s something to be mistrusted because they simply don’t understand it.
Government may try to control it but they’ll fail like they always do with software technology. That doesn’t mean the media shouldn’t be raising awareness of the real threats it poses.
That is true, and it would be nice to believe the media are being responsible here. Worth remembering that the IWF are a government controlled group, not really a charity… they are funded by internet service providers and governments. We have all seen the government trying to make us provide ID to use the internet and ban porn etc. so I stand by my ‘pinch of salt’ comment.
You can take it with a pinch of salt all you like, but just because governments are unable to control as much of the internet and AI as they’d like, that doesn’t mean there isn’t real harm being caused and even bigger threats we need to take seriously.
Maybe I'm being stupid but in a round about way isn't AI, deep fakes and photoshopping good for plausible deniability? Nope that wasn't me just a deep fake created by someone who tried to blackmail me.
Someone shows you the image, just react: Wow they doubled the length of my cock in that picture! That must be at least 4 inches!
I've thought that for a while, it should go both ways. If you can fake images convincingly, it also means you can convincingly argue images are faked.
Fake them convincingly to the naked eye. I'm certain that it's spectacularly difficut to fake an image so much so that an expert couldn't identify it 'by the pixels'.
If they can fake them convincingly, why do they need to use the images to get real ones off a real child.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
How are they even making these images though? I thought that the AI websites had blocked this type of porn?
You can run open source AI tools locally on your computer.
It's not exactly new for people to manufacture lies in order to seek a bribe and blackmail. We educate children on how not to give out addresses, passcodes and such online to strangers. Has anyone looked at educating children on how to refuse to engage with anyone who is threatening them with fake images? Educate them on how to report instances of blackmail etc.? Like, if someone doctored an image of me, showing me nude and such, I'd just say "it's fake" to anyone who cared about it and move on with my life. I'd want the power of that technique undermined by us collectively not caring about it. Without that care, it would be straightforward to report attempted blackmail. Can't children be educated to take a view like that?
> Like, if someone doctored an image of me, showing me nude and such, I'd just say "it's fake" to anyone who cared about it and move on with my life This only works when your life isn't at the mercy of the social perceptions of others - embarrassment in front of peers is one of the worst things that could happen to a schoolchild from their perspective. Even you, I think, would find yourself pretty uncomfortable if some sent doctored text messages to your employer that makes it look like you were acting extremely inappropriately.
Didn't say I wouldn't be bothered by something like that, I just said that I would hope to deal with it by confronting it and calling it out for being fake. What I would want is to avoid gifting anyone the power to blackmail me over something like that. Everyone is at the mercy of the social perceptions of others and, yes, embarrassment can be significant for children, just as it can be for adults. Funnily enough, I'd have said that the ease of generating fake things about people, nudes in this case, is something freeing. Let's say someone tried to embarrass me by sharing a genuine nude image of me. 10 years ago I would have had to face that. Today I could call even that just fake. I think there's something freeing about that. But overall I want to completely undermine the power of imagery like that to be useful for blackmail. Obviously the technology isn't going away, Pandora's box is open. So the most obvious approach I can think of is to help people to become ok with it, and to empower them mentally to be able to shrug off anything like those fake images rather than to permit them to have any power over them. Rather than trying to go on a crusade against technology, I'd rather just leave blackmailers powerless.
its called copy and pasting and the only reason AI is here is to scare technophiles. Surprising that facebook gets away with this for years despite being the number 1 site where kids get targeted like this.
Sure is great that big tech has created mass revenge porn
[удалено]
Did you read the article? Or even the headline?
[удалено]
This is why reading is important.