AI Derangement Syndrome / Anti-AI artists / Pro-AI technocultists / AI "debate" communities - The Natural Retardation in the Artificial Intelligence communities

linchan said:
I think it's high time we discussed this.
Click to expand...
Loliconers from Texas on suicide watch, finally some good news coming from the US ranch. Now if that law was on the federal level, that would be absolutely amazing.

But bear in mind that it could be a double edge sword, for if it's too broad, people needing anatomy drawings such as pediatricians could get behind bars. Laws are tools, and if wielded by stupid people, stupid horrors will be unleashed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11apocalyptic11, Dunkin DoNUT, Catgirls are Love and 4 others
One Angry Computer said:
Now if that law was on the federal level, that would be absolutely amazing.
Click to expand...
18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

(a)In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that—
(1)
(A)depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B)is obscene;
.....

These laws have existed for a while, it all hinges on the definition of obscene which in the USA has a very strict definition due to our 1st amendment rights.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Wright, Dunkin DoNUT, Verpa Teutonica Ingens and 2 others
gagabobo1997 said:
I don't trust the government to not use things like this to increase internet censorship under the guise of 'think of the children!!'
Click to expand...
It's not the law or the principles I'm worried about but that there is going to be a push that the liability of these laws will be given to the software that generated them instead of solely on the user.

It is one thing to uphold the law and keep criminals accountable, it's another to demand these companies enforce nanny guidelines or surveillance into their systems. Already we see Apple allow the UK government to backdoor its systems. It sounds too plausible.

Even without the government, do we think it's a good idea to let the tech companies decide the moral usage of their products? I'm not sure how section 230 applies to generative AI, but I feel like the protections should be expanded similarly.

Look, I think child porn is one of those universally unforgivable crimes there is, and it's difficult to argue for any libertarian or free expression stance with that in mind, but I think this is why it is important to keep authorship away from the machine and towards its user. A lot of people have this tendency to claim that whatever the AI creates should not be attributed to the prompter, especially on the topic of copyright, so I'm worried that this will create a movement to push for restrictions on the technology, as the software is seen just as liable to the crime as the user since they did most of the work.

I think that premise on its face is ridiculous, because we do not penalize the camera manufacturer for creating the device that filmed the illegal content, but more outrageous is the idea that somehow a machine is more responsible for the crime than the person who requested it.

As far as fictional CP goes, when I was younger, I was in the camp of "It doesn't hurt real children". While I still agree that technically speaking no children were hurt in the production of such material, I find it that these kinds of materials are undeniably damaging to those that regularly consume them, and it's kinda inarguable that a lot of the imagery of that nature is too obscene for the public. As much as I want to champion free expression, there is a part of me nowadays that doesn't want to live in a world where content like that is proliferated, drawn or AI.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Wright, Sergeant Major Buzzkill, Xenomorphs Are Cute and 8 others
linchan said:
A lot of people have this tendency to claim that whatever the AI creates should not be attributed to the prompter, especially on the topic of copyright, so I'm worried that this will create a movement to push for restrictions on the technology, as the software is seen just as liable to the crime as the user since they did most of the work.
Click to expand...
As far as CP goes, the cat is kinda out of the bag with local image models. I think it is only a matter of time before owning local models is penalized or you need an ID or something to buy a GPU. Maybe blue states will start banning high-capacity assault GPUs lol.
linchan said:
While I still agree that technically speaking no children were hurt in the production of such material, I find it that these kinds of materials are undeniably damaging to those that regularly consume them, and it's kinda inarguable that a lot of the imagery of that nature is too obscene for the public. As much as I want to champion free expression, there is a part of me nowadays that doesn't want to live in a world where content like that is proliferated, drawn or AI.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, porn in general is much more of a societal blight than drawn loli hentai as a subcategory of porn. Weird Japanese loli shit is probably less than a percent of the total porn on the internet and I feel like politicians and advocates could get much more done by going after major pornography companies rather than pseudonymous twitter loli artists. Gooners AI generating loli hentai causes significantly less harm (not to say it isn't harmful) than pornhub and xvideos being available to every child, and the rampant onlyfans whoring of the modern Internet.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Wright, Autistic Gunspergings, bouquetnine and 8 others
gagabobo1997 said:
As far as CP goes, the cat is kinda out of the bag with local image models. I think it is only a matter of time before owning local models is penalized or you need an ID or something to buy a GPU. Maybe blue states will start banning high-capacity assault GPUs lol.

In my opinion, porn in general is much more of a societal blight than drawn loli hentai as a subcategory of porn. Weird Japanese loli shit is probably less than a percent of the total porn on the internet and I feel like politicians and advocates could get much more done by going after major pornography companies rather than pseudonymous twitter loli artists. Gooners AI generating loli hentai causes significantly less harm (not to say it isn't harmful) than pornhub and xvideos being available to every child, and the rampant onlyfans whoring of the modern Internet.
Click to expand...
At this point, we are better just labeling porn as some kind of legal controlled drug, such as alcohol or tobacco, since it is impossible to outlaw. A controlled "medium", if you will. It would be hysterical to see porn sites with the stamp of "FDA Approved" over them.

Do you want to draw, for example, a wolf woman with huge tits? You can, but if you want to make money off from it, you need the to make sure you're selling it to an adult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cnidarian, Wright, Verpa Teutonica Ingens and 3 others
gagabobo1997 said:
porn in general is much more of a societal blight than drawn loli hentai as a subcategory of porn
Click to expand...
Yeah, but to me I can understand a guy having a porn mag, but if I see loli or beastiality porn of the same volume, that's some perspective altering revelation that I can't come back from.
Like you have to be some heightened level of porn addiction if you can't get your jollies off of normal women and need to get your kicks from kiddy porn.

I don't think it's any of my business to get into the privacy of others still, but I can't deny how it fundamentally changes the relationship with other people if it ever gets exposed.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Poyo Sato, Wright, Verpa Teutonica Ingens and 3 others
@Glowie you made it onto r/ArtistHate
Screenshot_20250316-155149.png
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Hightension, Dededon't, 11apocalyptic11 and 24 others
Opal Mermaid said:
r/aiwars unironically defends lolis? The comments are even worse.
View attachment 7100240
Click to expand...
the wide umbrella of "obscene" and the "or someone who looks like one" parts are what have people rightfully concerned about shit. The shit was already illegal, broadening the scope to "obscene content" and "looks like according to authorties" makes it so like you having a midget saying the nigger word can get you in legal trouble. They need to stop showing anime girls and start showing midgets so people can understand why this legalese shit's shady. Reddit and twitter just make everything fucking awful man.
EDIT: Forgot to bring it up since I didn't notice the text at first when I skimmed it but it's funny how pedos always jump to the "Oh this will hurt lgbt!!!!" shit. HOW IS IT GONNA STOP GAYS FROM FUCKING EACH OTHER IN THE ASS?
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Deviant
  • Autistic
Reactions: Wright, gagabobo1997, The Spoils of War and 2 others
w
crowabunga said:
CivitAI doesn't have enough milk to write a thread on (it's all the same slop you'd find in a 4chan AI thread but slightly more moderated; people don't say their model makes loli hentai even if it's obviously designed for it) but I needed to share these pictures somewhere (be warned, this is some Furry Art Freak Show-tier shit):
View attachment 6952310
View attachment 6952312View attachment 6952313View attachment 6952314View attachment 6952315View attachment 6952316View attachment 6952317View attachment 6952318
(this final image was a user-submitted screenshot for a LoRA designed to make animals fat)
...And remember, these are just the previews of LoRAs that can be used to create nigh-infinite nightmare porn, and the LoRAs can be mixed and matched.
Click to expand...
who yoinks their shit to alive dick
 
Those "anti-AI child porn" laws are just the government's foot in the doorstep to control AI.
1742848154473.png
Six fingered animal people aren't real yet AI is capable of creating realistic depictions of them. AI can assume the missing detail even if it doesn't exist, that's the whole point of it.
1742848387921.png
AI can also create realistic depictions of shirtless CEO's of multi-trillion dollar companies holding you at gunpoint. It's already at a point where you can create realistic images at the comfort of your own home and the noise of your overpriced GPU crunching the numbers.

So the question is: what is there to stop people from generating AI images of child pornography that are indistinguishable from the real thing, even if no child pornography was a part of the data set used to create it? The answer is nothing. You don't explicitly need child porn to generate child porn because the AI is designed to be capable of filling in those blanks.

And if this AI generated child porn is indistinguishable from the real thing, what is there to stop the government from prosecuting it the same way? The answer is, again, nothing. That is already the case. No new laws are required.

Any new laws that explicitly mention AI and child pornography in the same breath serve only one purpose: for the government to be able to later expand them to encompass all AI and give them control over it. If AI doesn't need child porn to generate realistic child porn, how do you ban AI child porn generation without banning AI as a whole, or severely crippling it? It's not something you can explicitly define in legalese, and that's the point. This will give the government a massive grey area to ban all AI, even if you used this AI to, I don't know, generate Keir Stramer in a clown costume, something you could do in Photoshop. And thanks to the good old "it's to protect the children" excuse, you can't protest it, because you'll be marked as a pedophile. Even if you'd explicitly mention the fact that existing laws already criminalize AI child porn.
control of interenet speech how would you like this wrapped.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Toolbox, lolcow yoghurt, Dunkin DoNUT and 8 others
gagabobo1997 said:
That sounds highly contingent on what 'obscene material' means. As far as I know, this is basically already how US federal law works, it's just that the courts don't consider hentai on the internet to be obscene and instead consider it 'art', for better or worse.
Realistic CP made with AI is already illegal too. Seems like the bill was passed with good intentions but I don't trust the government to not use things like this to increase internet censorship under the guise of 'think of the children!!' Maybe now in Texas if you go on /b/ you could get slapped with a felony charge of CP because you have some loli shit in your browser cache.
Click to expand...
As optimistic as people are about it in the anti-pedo thread (which is confusingly full of users with pfps of underage anime girls...) I think the actual enforcement will be lackluster at best and a lot of it will be political like how CPS will ignore actual child abuse and instead go after the guy who wont let his son cut his dick off.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Wright, He's Ronald McDonald and gagabobo1997
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back