Okay, Fine, AI Rape Art Is Fine Because It's Not Real. What About AI CSAM? Is It Fine Because It's Art,

Okay, fine, AI rape art is fine because it's not real. What about AI CSAM? Is it fine because it's art, or is it bad because real CSAM content is basically guaranteed to have been involved in training the AI? Again, where do you think AI /learns/ to make photorealistic RAPE art? It uses REFERENCES.

I can't believe you're making me somewhat defend AI generation here but off we go I guess.

AI data-mines accessible media and specific locations for media. While AI continuously learns the more you use it, the majority of AI's founding knowledge came pre-launch, as well as with its training. AI is not digging its little fingers around in the dark web.

For example if you wanted to prompt 'child porn' the AI does not immediately start digging around in the dark web for child pornography. It pairs the two keywords 'child' with everything its learned on children and 'porn' with everything its learned on sex and pornography and mashes them together.

So, no. Its not "basically guaranteed" to have used real CSEM. Nice try, though.

Granted there are still AI services which allow you to insert a sample image, but you're kidding yourself if you don't think an inserted reference image paired with specific prompts won't get flagged for review. AI techbros don't want their million dollar investments getting tanked and while they don't care about copyright you can bet they'll care if the FBI start kicking down their doors.

Most AI generators, in their legal statements, will have a section about using unlawful content to reference, train or manipulate their technology.

A lot of AI generation tools also blacklist certain key terms anyway so pornographic or "unsavory" content cannot be created. (Like rape images, murder images, gore images, ect.)

(E.g; if I tried to prompt 'Trump getting murdered' on select AI generation sites it would tell me I cannot use a prompt including 'murdered.')

I will say that there needs to be a better system in place for that. I'm sure a lot of samples of actual illegal activity have made it through the cracks (as it does everywhere), which is part of why I firmly believe AI generation should be shut down until the entire system can be reworked in order to offer better protection to the people who are being used as cashcows. In terms of copyright protection and more effective systems for preventing AI being trained off of certain content.

And because I know you're going to ask; yes. I do believe that if an image was generated sourced from actual CSEM, that the image should be as thoroughly scrubbed as possible. I do not condone CSEM in any form nor for any uses.

Nor do I condone AI generation (as it currently stands.)

Are you done with your little gotcha attempts now, Anon? I'm bored.

Hi, I'm the original person who sent that "callouts with documented evidence" ask, and I was originally talking about toonimal. Who repeatedly admitted he was a predator. I understand that callout was handled terribly (ex. not blurring victims names) but seeing people reply UNDER THE POST that "well... pedophile has been washed down so much" as if they can't just click "read more" is so frustrating.

Then you tell them to click 'read more' and leave them to their own conclusions. If they want to remain in wilful ignorance that's a them issue. If they were simply being reactive and ill-informed, they can correct themselves.

My original points still stand in reference to your original vague ask, though.

(In that I won't personally begrudge anyone who doesn't immediately jump into the fray on a callout with unwavering faith.)

Unfortunately for those who want to remain stubborn and ignorant there's only so much you can do. Some people are so entrenched in making online culture and community their entire life that its impossible to pry them out of that state of existence and its rules.

I do, unfortunately, know such people in real life and they are fucking impossible to co-exist with even as someone who shares most of their values.

An investigation found hundreds of known images of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) in an open dataset used to train popular AI image generation models, such as Stable Diffusion. Models trained on this dataset, known as LAION-5B, are being used to create photorealistic AI-generated nude images, including CSAM. It is challenging to clean or stop the distribution of publicly distributed datasets as it has been widely disseminated. Future datasets could use freely available detection tools to prevent the collection of known CSAM. (SOURCE: https:// cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/news/investigation-finds-ai-image-generation-models-trained-child-abuse)

This isn't some "gotcha". This is something that actually HAPPENED.

Firstly;

Secondly, pick a fucking argument, dude. You've gone from asking me if I think AI rape images are fine to asking if I think AI CSA is fine because its using real CSEM to calling out that some AI datasets were contaminated.

So what's your argument? Are you arguing against my moral values or against AI? Those specific AI programs? People using art to fulfil unorthodox fantasy?

Copy-pasting statements after a furious little google search because I'm not bending over ass-backwards to agree with you is presenting what point, exactly?

AI bad?

Taboo kink bad?

Fictional content bad?

RPF bad?

Which is it? Help me out here. Is it some hybrid of all of those points?

Because I mean if your point is that AI is bad, I agree! Whole heartedly. For a multitude of reasons, not least one of your copied points; that it is actually basically impossible to make the AI forget something its learned. Hence; scrapping it all and starting over. Hence; stricter laws that only allow AI to be trained on specific open source datasets. Hence; requiring human approval for reference images and constant human monitoring rather than simply allowing the AI to run unsupervised, as most are.

I just don't agree that using various mediums to create fictional art that isn't created with a malicious directive is bad. Whether that's done by hand or using (god forbid) AI.

Do you think the AI rape art of Taylor Swift is justifiable because it's art and not an action?

This is really not going to make you happy, Anon, but to be frank, its an AI image. By itself, its harmless.

The inexcusable action is deliberately attempting to expose the person concerned to it and also therein the harm. Plenty of unpalatable art is created for a myriad of reasons.

I frankly don't care if people make AI rape images of Taylor Swift. I care if they're trying to force her to see them or if they're trying to perpetrate them as real. I care if those images are deliberately being used maliciously to cause people harm.

If you think RPF is simply limited to 50 Shades-style Y/N fanfiction or thirst blogs, you are sorely mistaken. The brutal reality is that, yeah. People who enjoy rape fantasies and RPF can and do combine those two things. People with hardcore kinks can and do imagine them involving real people.

The watering down of the words "pedophile", "CSEM/CSAM", "groomer", etc done by antis has slowly spread to outside the fandom circle

The thing about antis is that they are not just in fandom spaces. They are also real people out in the real world with impact and influence.

They're the kind of people who try to get movies and TV shows banned for depicting things they disagree with. They're the kind of people who insert themselves into people's private lives with attempts to control and dictate what they can and cannot do. They're the kind of people who jump to extreme measures and incorrect solutions to real problems.

Having met antis in real life I can certainly say that their real lives and fandom experiences work in tandem.

As an ex-anti I feel a little bad because I only stopped being one when it was my ship they started targeting. I wonder if I ever would have changed if I never happened to ship a "bad ship" one time or if I'd still be spouting the same nonsense today. :-/

This is actually one of the most common ways people stop being an anti. When you're forced onto the other side of the argument, it often brutally enlightens you to faults in your own arguments and perspective.

You never truly understand what someone else is thinking until you're forced to think in the same way, or to recognise how and why they think the way they do.

Unfortunately, sometimes antis will experience that and only double down on their own argument, declaring themselves the exception or inventing increasingly varied reasons for why things don't apply to them.