A new report warns that the proliferation of child sexual abuse images on the internet could become much worse if something is not done to put controls on artificial intelligence tools that generate deepfake photos.
Probably fine for child abuse porn in a drawn style, like loli, but probably not sufficient for the photorealistic porn that it is supposedly intended to replace.
This is ultimately the flaw in your argument that an AI can produce "new" works because it doesn't need to have seen a toddler riding a lion on the moon to be able to produce that image. If you didn't give AI photos of lions, it would never be able to create a lion. If you never gave it photos of toddlers, it would never be able to do a picture of a toddler. And if there were no photos of the moon in its training data, it would be incapable of producing the moon. It cannot create things it has not seen. It can only arrange things it has seen in combinations that may or may not have been previously thought of (with billions of images in the training data, you can't say there isn't a Photoshopped photo of a toddler on the moon in there.)
Without actual child porn in its training data, it would never be able to produce any, because even when it's capable of piecing individual elements together into a "new" piece (basically an advanced collage), if there's no images of children being abused in the training data, it's not going to be able to piece it together by putting a child's head on an adult's naked body, and result in anything that's more satisfactory for paedophiles than actual photos of children. There is therefore no ethical means of producing AI-generated child porn, and therefore it is not an ethical alternative. Somewhere in the chain, there are still children being abused.
I think you haven't made much use of image-generating AIs. They're quite capable of reinterpreting images into different styles. A very common use case for me is to draw a sketch of something and then tell an image AI to turn it photorealistic. The "automated collage" approach you describe is simply not how they work, it's a common misconception. Image AIs very much can create imagery of things that weren't explicitly in their training set, they're not just regurgitating pasted-together snippets.
You're also assuming that there are no literal photographs of children's genitals in medical literature. Again, I haven't exactly gone looking, but I'm sure there are some out there. Doctors can't afford to be prudish.
And finally, you can get plenty pornographic without even specifically showing off genitals.
Oh, so you mean the photos in the training dataset that violate medical privacy, because parents who consented to photos of their child being included in textbooks and medical journals for educational purposes didn't consent to photos of their child being used for AI-generated child porn for the sexual gratification of paedophiles? The only way photos of children from medical literature would be ethical to use for child porn is if the parents of the child have consented to that usage. Having had surgery last year, where photos were taken, I can confirm there are extensive consent forms to be filled out for what medical professionals can record (photos, videos, livestreaming, etc), and what they can use the visual records for (research, education/training, sharing cosmetic outcomes on social media, etc). Parents that will have checked the "can use photos of my child for research and education" will not have given informed consent for those photos to be inserted into an AI model for child porn, and are unlikely to give consent if "child porn AI" is a separate box on the consent form.
So… yeah, you're not convincing me using medical photos of vulnerable children in hospital settings to create fapping material for paedophiles is an ethical use of AI technology.
And an AI without photos of lions is never going to be able to produce a photorealistic lion, even if you gave it a sketch of a lion, because it would have no frame of reference for what a lion is supposed to look like. It would make its best guess, which is fine for when it's something that doesn't really exist - but when humans know what a lion is meant to look like, they'll know when an AI botches it.
Oh, so you mean the photos in the training dataset that violate medical privacy
If they're published in a textbook then they're not private.
will not have given informed consent for those photos to be inserted into an AI model for child porn
Again, an AI model doesn't have to be created specifically for the purpose of child porn in order for it to be able to generate child porn. Most of these AI image models are very general purpose, they can create images of all kinds of things.
We're going in circles here and you're just getting angrier in your responses, I don't think this is headed anywhere useful at this point.
Medical textbooks.
Probably fine for child abuse porn in a drawn style, like loli, but probably not sufficient for the photorealistic porn that it is supposedly intended to replace.
This is ultimately the flaw in your argument that an AI can produce "new" works because it doesn't need to have seen a toddler riding a lion on the moon to be able to produce that image. If you didn't give AI photos of lions, it would never be able to create a lion. If you never gave it photos of toddlers, it would never be able to do a picture of a toddler. And if there were no photos of the moon in its training data, it would be incapable of producing the moon. It cannot create things it has not seen. It can only arrange things it has seen in combinations that may or may not have been previously thought of (with billions of images in the training data, you can't say there isn't a Photoshopped photo of a toddler on the moon in there.)
Without actual child porn in its training data, it would never be able to produce any, because even when it's capable of piecing individual elements together into a "new" piece (basically an advanced collage), if there's no images of children being abused in the training data, it's not going to be able to piece it together by putting a child's head on an adult's naked body, and result in anything that's more satisfactory for paedophiles than actual photos of children. There is therefore no ethical means of producing AI-generated child porn, and therefore it is not an ethical alternative. Somewhere in the chain, there are still children being abused.
I think you haven't made much use of image-generating AIs. They're quite capable of reinterpreting images into different styles. A very common use case for me is to draw a sketch of something and then tell an image AI to turn it photorealistic. The "automated collage" approach you describe is simply not how they work, it's a common misconception. Image AIs very much can create imagery of things that weren't explicitly in their training set, they're not just regurgitating pasted-together snippets.
You're also assuming that there are no literal photographs of children's genitals in medical literature. Again, I haven't exactly gone looking, but I'm sure there are some out there. Doctors can't afford to be prudish.
And finally, you can get plenty pornographic without even specifically showing off genitals.
Oh, so you mean the photos in the training dataset that violate medical privacy, because parents who consented to photos of their child being included in textbooks and medical journals for educational purposes didn't consent to photos of their child being used for AI-generated child porn for the sexual gratification of paedophiles? The only way photos of children from medical literature would be ethical to use for child porn is if the parents of the child have consented to that usage. Having had surgery last year, where photos were taken, I can confirm there are extensive consent forms to be filled out for what medical professionals can record (photos, videos, livestreaming, etc), and what they can use the visual records for (research, education/training, sharing cosmetic outcomes on social media, etc). Parents that will have checked the "can use photos of my child for research and education" will not have given informed consent for those photos to be inserted into an AI model for child porn, and are unlikely to give consent if "child porn AI" is a separate box on the consent form.
So… yeah, you're not convincing me using medical photos of vulnerable children in hospital settings to create fapping material for paedophiles is an ethical use of AI technology.
And an AI without photos of lions is never going to be able to produce a photorealistic lion, even if you gave it a sketch of a lion, because it would have no frame of reference for what a lion is supposed to look like. It would make its best guess, which is fine for when it's something that doesn't really exist - but when humans know what a lion is meant to look like, they'll know when an AI botches it.
If they're published in a textbook then they're not private.
Again, an AI model doesn't have to be created specifically for the purpose of child porn in order for it to be able to generate child porn. Most of these AI image models are very general purpose, they can create images of all kinds of things.
We're going in circles here and you're just getting angrier in your responses, I don't think this is headed anywhere useful at this point.
Nope, this is headed nowhere useful, because we have a fundamentally different sense of ethics.