![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/d3d059e3-fa3d-45af-ac93-ac894beba378.png)
True. I didn’t become a commie until I was almost thirty, young me was so idealistic.
True. I didn’t become a commie until I was almost thirty, young me was so idealistic.
tHeSe MeN wErE vIoLeNt TyRaNtS
The kulaks and the monarchists and the nazi collaboraters deserved it. Communists have been vindicated by history every single time.
Why would I want my prompt to be private if I don’t want to use the result in some malicious way
Do you think that the only thing people use AI for is making deepfakes and CSAM? AFAIK the most common use is generating porn. Now, I don’t think generating regular porn is “malicious”, but I certainly understand why most people (self included) want to keep what they generate private.
I suppose you would also be fine with every one of your google searches being in a database? Every video you’ve ever watched, even the ones in private browser tabs?
introducing the AI transparency act, which requires every generative prompt to be registered in a government database
How many times can I say “social context” before you grok it? There’s a difference between a picture taken by a doctor for medical reasons and one taken by a pedo as CSAM. If doctors and parents are being nailed to the cross for totally legitimate images then that strikes me as evidence that the law is too rigid and needs more flexibility, not the other way around.
Who will be the judge?
The same people that should judge every criminal proceeding. Of course it’s not going to be perfect, but this is a case of not letting perfect be the enemy of good. Allowing generated or drawn images of sexualized children to exist has external costs to society in the form of normalizing the concept.
The argument that making generated or drawn CSAM illegal is bad because the feds might plant such images on an activist is incoherent. If you’re worried about that, why not worry that they’ll plant actual CSAM on your computer?
there cannot be developed a scale or spectrum to judge where the fake stops and real starts
Ah, but my definition didn’t at all rely on whether or not the images were “real” or “fake”, did it? An image is not merely an arrangement of pixels in a jpeg, you understand - an image has a social context that tells us what it is and why it was created. It doesn’t matter if there were real actors or not, if it’s an image of a child and it’s being sexualized, it should be considered CSAM.
And yes I understand that that will always be a subjective judgement with a grey area, but not every law needs to have a perfectly defined line where the legal becomes the illegal. A justice system should not be a computer program that simply runs the numbers and delivers an output.
Hot take: yes. All art exists in a social context, and if the social context of your art is “this is a child and they are sexualized” then your art should be considered CSAM. Doesn’t matter if it’s in an anime style, a photorealistic style, or if it’s a movie where the children are fully clothed for the duration but are sexualized by the director as in Cuties - CSAM, CSAM, CSAM.
Do you not consider photoshopping an actual person’s photos into porn abusive towards that person?
Religion is primarily a social phenomenon, so as long as people want to belong to a larger group then there will always be people willing to believe whatever non-falsifiable truths they need to in order to belong to one.
If even one person is dumb and rich enough to buy it, then it’s worth it to make the website to try to sell it to them. And we live in a world with many such people.
Man I made my Mojang account so long ago that when I tried to transition I couldn’t recover the account password to do it.
If a bunch of security experts came out in the wake of the feature’s announcement talking about how much of a disaster it is, I hope they would.
I’ve got no problem paying money for a service that’s worth it. I still buy games on Steam even though I know how to pirate them because Valve’s service is so goddamn convenient it beats piracy in many ways.
Netflix used to be that good, and when YouTube Red rolled out I bought a year of it. But things have deteriorated significantly since then and the price has only gone up.
Sometime before the end of this decade I think we’re going to see the opposite - regulation that makes blocking ads illegal in the same way the DMCA makes cracking copyright protection illegal. They’ll package it with some kind of anti-CP thing and then call all the people who oppose the bill pedos.
Google ads were originally a panacea for really bad popups of the early 2000s. Google had a strict list of dos and don’ts, and ad revenues were high enough that most websites only ran one or two.
People will say, “but then how could a website like YouTube exit at all?”
To which I say that we should retvrn to sharing funny videos via long email chains.
Do you want mutant shark people? Because this is how you get mutant shark people.
As we all know, getting more militantly progressive because you see the repeated failures of the liberal worldview is exactly the same as getting more conservative because you own more property 🤡