this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
280 points (97.9% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2716 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Hugh Nelson, 27, from Bolton, jailed after transforming normal pictures of children into sexual abuse imagery

A man who used AI to create child abuse images using photographs of real children has been sentenced to 18 years in prison.

In the first prosecution of its kind in the UK, Hugh Nelson, 27, from Bolton, was convicted of 16 child sexual abuse offences in August, after an investigation by Greater Manchester police (GMP).

Nelson had used Daz 3D, a computer programme with an AI function, to transform “normal” images of children into sexual abuse imagery, Greater Manchester police said. In some cases, paedophiles had commissioned the images, supplying photographs of children with whom they had contact in real life.

He was also found guilty of encouraging other offenders to commit rape.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 113 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I think the last two paragraphs in the body of this post are the real issue here, not that he was just using AI to create CSAM.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Right? Feels like this is being tacked on as a shot at AI. Otherwise nobody is harmed except the guy. Pedos are ick, but if harmless then why punish? I don't think anyone should have to take a fall because others think their desires are gross.

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 53 points 3 weeks ago (20 children)

Because they are using images of real children.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

I agree, but if there were some way to create CSAM without using real children (I'm not sure how you would train such an AI model), it would probably be worth seeing if that did anything to make pedophiles less likely to act out on their desires.

Because my god, we need to figure out something.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean trying to help them get treatment instead of going all pod-people on anyone showing even the possibility of being attracted to kids would be helpful.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago

I've been saying that for ages. Obviously we don't want to enable any pedophiles to do anything horrific to children, but we're at a state right now where if you have those urges to begin with, you're basically already told to accept that you're an incurable monster. So why not act on the urges?

Somehow we need to get through to such people that they need to get help before they do anything terrible. I'm not sure how to do that in the current climate though.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

The way AI models work, you don't have to train it on the thing you want it to do, you can ask it to combine the things it knows about. Take any of the meme loras for example, like pepe punch or patcha.

So literally any model that can generate pictures of naked adults and clothed children - which is to say almost all of them - is going to be at least somewhat competent in creating CP unless those prompts are being actively censored and blocked.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

Train it to depict humans that look like anime characters that are ~~definitely 18 or older~~ immortal dragons that are taking on the bodies of young human beings

DisclaimerI am not condoning, endorsing, or suggesting this

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I think this was a crime because he modified images of actual kids. If the images were 100% AI (not of real people) I'm not sure on what basis that would be considered a crime, no more than a handmade drawing of a nude minor drawn from imagination.

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Any sexual representation of a child is illegal in the UK whether it looks real or not. In fact I believe it doesn't need to even be a child, it's a illegal if a reasonable person would believe it was depicting a child. This came up when adults who were into age play got into trouble distributing their images because it looked convincingly underage.

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 28 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Wait so even if the subjects are adults in costume its illegal? Fuck man, school uniforms is a whole genre of porn.

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago

It's not about reducing harm to children, it's about moral superiority.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 17 points 3 weeks ago

And I suppose we can rely on the courts to know sexual when they see it, so people don't get in trouble for taking pictures of cherubs at the Louvre.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know that. Seems like a bit of an overreach to me, but I suppose in this particular case it's best to err on the side of caution.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

In the US federally you might be able to get away with creating the images for yourself if they are 100% fictional, but the guy also was doing commission work. The moment you start transmitting the images (and selling would involve that) it becomes very very illegal.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I don't really think anything is 100% AI. I also don't really believe in the concept of thought being a crime and extend personally kept data to that realm.

[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The fuck? Nothing about generating and distributing CSAM material is harmless, and especially if images of real children are being used to generate it.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay. Who is harmed and how?

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago (22 children)

Would it harm you to have identifiable nude photos of you available for download on the internet?

Would it harm you to have identifiable nude photos of you being used to train AI so that it can create more nude images that are "inspired" by your nude images?

Would you be happy to upload your children's nude photos so that people on the internet can share them and masturbate to them? Would you be harmed if your parents had done that with your images?

load more comments (22 replies)
[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 weeks ago

There's the fact that the images he was creating were pictures of real kids. Deep fake porn is already creepy enough, add in that it was csam....

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, that changes it a bit - that definitely has more of a creep factor. I still question if it's really the kind of thing that should land you in jail for a long time.

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 33 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Good riddance. Now go after the fucks that bought this shit from him.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 25 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Most AI porn images looks quite underage to me, to be completely frank. :/

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

At least with a human being it’s a matter of factuality whether or not they’re over 18. But with AI it’s unverifiable, especially considering some models have already been trained on CSEM.

Once someone has that model locally, do they technically possess CSEM, even unknowingly? Do they only possess it if they try to make the AI make it? Seems like something someone in charge should have thought about in a legally binding way before dumping the internet into an image generator!

[–] superkret@feddit.org 26 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

In this case he used pictures from actual children and transformed them into CSAM using AI. So there's no question about the age, and there are real victims, too.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 weeks ago

Oh yeah, this dude without a question is guilty and a pedo. I meant more that ‘out of the box’ models may still produce material that looks really CSEM adjacent, and you have no way of telling whether or not it used CSEM to generate the image if the whole dataset is poisoned by actual CSEM being included.

Bound to be tested in court sooner or later. As far as I understand it one is "in possession" if they have access to a set of steps or procedures that would recover an image. So this prevents offenders from hiding behind the fact their images were compressed in a zip file or something. They don't have a literal offending image, but they possess it in a form that they can transform.

What would need to be tested is that AI generators are coming up with novel images rather than retrieving existing ones. It seems like common sense but the law is quite pedantic. The more significant issue is that generators don't need to be trained on csem to come up with it. So proving someone had it with the intent of producing it would always be hard. Even generators trained on illegal material I'm not sure it would be straight forward to prove that someone knew what it was capable of.

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I'm not the person to clear up this legal grey area. I just think that AI porn often has these incredibly young faces which makes the enjoyers of that porn extra creepy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I assume any CSEM ingested into these models is absolutely swamped by the massive amount of adult porn that's much more easily available. A handful of images aren't going to drive model output in datasets of the scale of the image generation models. Maybe there are keywords that could drill down to be more associated with the child porn, but a lot of "young" type keywords are already plentifully applied to adults, and I imagine accidental child porn ingests are much less likely to be as conveniently labeled.

So maybe you can figure out how to get it to produce child porn, but it probably won't just randomly produce it for an innocent porn prompt.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The actual issue is that models who are trained on porn, or even just nudity, and simultaneously trained on perfectly innocent pictures of children will be able to produce at least an approximation of CSAM if you know what you're doing.

More recent commercial foundation models are absolutely neutered when it comes to nudity and, or at least that's the hypothesis, that's why so they're godawful at anatomy. Which is why upcoming community models are going to go the way of include the porn but not include any pictures of any child in any situation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 10 points 3 weeks ago

I have not personally explored AI porn, but as someone with experience in machine learning and accidental biases that's not very surprising to me.

On top the of the general societal bias towards youth for "beauty" related roles, smoother and less-featured faces (that in general look younger) are closer to an average face so defaulting to that gets a bit of training boost (when in doubt, target the mean). It's probably also not helped by youth-related porn keywords (teen, daughter, young) that further associate other porn prompts (even ones not about youth) with non-porn images of underage women that also have those keywords.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Most real porn has women who look like kids to me.

Even the so-called MILFs look about 15 years younger than me and I'm 47.

You have to get into "mature" and shit to see women my age.

I'm not into young women. I'm just not. It looks like they're fucking a high schooler and it's icky to me.

And then there's all the schoolgirl and incest or incest-adjacent shit. "Playing with my stepdad." No. Just no.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Most AI porn I've seen looks like Eldritch abominations, but then I haven't seen any for a while so maybe it's improved

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pythia@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Daz3d ? It's a "modelling" SW, there's no AI in it... https://www.daz3d.com/

[–] Silentiea@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 weeks ago

"a computer program with an ai function" what if he just used Windows, it has an ai function

load more comments
view more: next ›