A.I. Is Making the Sexual Exploitation of Girls Even Worse::Parents, schools and our laws need to catch up to technology, fast.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’ve always taken the “protect our children” argument to have an implied “…from the knowledge that will actually protect them from abusers” based on the things the argument is trotted out for.

      • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        always be wary when they say either “protect the children” or " for your safety"

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    Paywall. Nope. Exploit those girls with your AI then. The messages against it can’t be heard without money.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      2 years ago

      Why do you think that journalists don’t deserve to get paid? People on Lemmy are even more entitled than people on Reddit.

      The messages against it can’t be heard without money.

      You shouldn’t need an article to tell you not to exploit people.

      • Sybil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        Why do you think that journalists don’t deserve to get paid?

        they didn’t say that. you’re making a leap of logic and putting words in their mouth

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          2 years ago

          Obviously they didn’t say exactly that, but how else are they supposed to earn money?

          • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            2 years ago

            They already make money on the ads, and of course you have to make an account, so they sell your info… and then they fire the journalists… I would pay for a good source of real new that didn’t have ads and didn’t sell my info. But they don’t exist.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 years ago

              What ads? I don’t see any ads.

              Their privacy policy also doesn’t seem too bad compared to most services.

              and of course you have to make an account, so they sell your info… and then they fire the journalists…

              What are you talking about? Do you think a 170 year old newspaper is an exit scam designed to get personal data, sell it, and then fuck off?

            • LSNLDN@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 years ago

              Novara media stream 6pm weekdays on YouTube, UK based news, free but with a supporter donation model

            • drawerair@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I encountered many New York times articles behind a paywall. I was :o that this wasn’t behind a paywall for me.

              I use archive.md for paywalls.

              I hope the New York times doesn’t sell user data. If it does, public rage can move it from being 1 of the top news sites to the bottom.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 years ago

              And those newspapers make money through magic?

              • Sybil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                2 years ago

                I don’t give a fuck. sell subscriptions, push ads, whatever. but if you deny access based on an ability to pay, what you have to say isn’t worth my time.

                • breakingcups@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  I can’t believe you’re pushing that dumb take in the same comment that you’re suggesting the newspapers sell subscriptions. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

                  The internet has made people feel very entitled to every form of content.

                  If you feel these organizations and their posts aren’t worth your time, stop commenting on them like a smug edgelord without actual solutions.

                • lud@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Isn’t most things in life restricted on ones ability or will to pay?

      • Mango@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        If you think your message is important, you shouldn’t bury it. Their message isn’t important. Their message is just to bring in money. “Journalists” can fuck right off. A real journalist is someone in the right place at the right time and telling about it because it’s important, not to make a career out of it. Consider Karl Jobst. He’s a journalist. He’s even getting paid. You know what he’s not doing? That’d be sitting in an office promoting a website with a subscription fee. Jobbers are not journalists.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Sure, but don’t people that write important messages deserve to live?

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Being a journalist is their job.

              Why do you think that journalists don’t deserve to live by being journalists?

              Why don’t you do your job for free? Why don’t doctors work for free if their job is so important.

              Also, where are your alleged “important messages”? I would like to read them.

              Btw, I had never heard of your Karl guy but he does get paid for his work. Because of course he does. He even has a patreon.

              And I wouldn’t really call talking about speedruns to be important messages.

              • Mango@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 years ago

                Think I should be paid for when I just do what’s right when it’s right? Rewarded maybe but idk about as a profession. Open source devs rarely get a payroll and they contribute to the world far more than payroll devs. Information is only good when it’s free.

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    As much as I would like to blame ai. Photoshop has been doing this for a long time already. I think the public ai sites already do csam searching and stuff for this already but somebody could still run it locally.

    • zaphod@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      And how many times have you made this comment, only to have it pointed out that there is a big fucking difference between a human manually creating fake images via Photoshop at human speed using human skills, versus automating the process so it can be done en masse at the push of a button?

      Because that’s a really big fucking difference.

      Think: musket versus gatling gun. Yeah, they both shoot bullets, but that’s about where the similarity ends.

      Is the genie out of the bottle at this point? Probably.

      But to claim this doesn’t represent a massive shift because Photoshop? Sorry but that’s at best naive, and it’s starting to get exhausting seeing this “argument” trotted out repeatedly by AI apologists.

      • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah ai would let you make more kiddie porn at a faster rate, but you can’t really regulate that. If somebody wanted to draw animated kiddie porn they could still do that. How far would you go until you ban crayons?

        I digress, yes, I don’t like that this shit is happening and there really isn’t a way. Making kiddie porn is already illegal and there’s no way to regulate these tools so we can just try our best to catch them.

        Some people say this ai thing for porn could lead to less sexual abuse. It’s so dark I’m kind of speechless but maybe it could even reduce actual people from getting physically hurt but I have no clue, time will tell.

        • zaphod@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          If somebody wanted to draw animated kiddie porn they could still do that. How far would you go until you ban crayons

          It’s genuinely impressive how completely you missed my point.

          How about another analogy: US federal law allows people to own individual firearms, but not grenades.

          But they’re both things that kill people, right? Why would they be treated differently?

          Hint: it’s about scale.

          The same is true of pipe bombs. But anyone can make a pipe bomb. Genie is out of the bottle, right? So why are there laws regulating manufacture and ownership of them? Hmm…

          • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            I guess we kind of agree then. A.i is a pipe bomb for kiddie porn and the genie is out of the bottle. Not much we can do about it. We will still have laws but that won’t stop anything. I already stated that the easy to access a.i services already prevent this from happening and there will be more regulation, though I don’t see what more laws and regulations can bring to the table.

  • alphacyberranger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s not exactly fault of AI. It’s a human problem. People have been doing this for years now but AI does make it easier.

  • Grimy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    A very ugly side to the technology, I absolutely think this should be considered on the same level as revenge porn and child pornography.

    I also fear these kind of stories while be used to manipulate the public into thinking banning the tools is in their best interest instead of punishing the bad actors.

  • D_Air1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Don’t we just send people caught with such materials to jail then? Regardless of if it was AI generated or not. If it is made to look like them then clearly shouldn’t be in your possession without their consent.

  • jaschen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    This will not be popular, but I welcome this. Once we normalize AI video porn, then videos are no longer trusted like we don’t trust photoshopped images.

    Even if the video is real, anyone can just claim it’s AI. Nobody will even need to create their own home videos anymore because the kink is sorta gone now since anyone can claim it’s fake.

    • excitingburp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I used to agree with this, but hearing interviews with actual victims changed my mind. This only works in theory.

      • jaschen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        There will be growing pains. The longer it takes to get it normalized the linger people suffer.

  • Clot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    Its bad for sexual exploitation of any gender,