A hacked database from AI companion site Muah.ai exposes peoples' particular kinks and fantasies they've asked their bot to engage in. It also shows many of them are trying to use the platform to generate child abuse material.
The problem with AI generated CP is that if they’re legal, it opens a new line of defense for actual CP. You would need to prove the content is not AI to convince real abusers. This is why it can’t be made legal, it needs to be prosecuted like real CP to be sure to convict actual abusers.
This is an incredibly itchy and complicated theme. So I will try not go go really further into it.
But prosecute what is essentially a work of fiction seems bad.
This it not even a topic new to the AI.
CP has been wildly represented in both written and graphical media. And the consensus in most free countries is not to prosecute those as they are a work of fiction.
I cannot think why an AI written CP fiction is different from human written CP fiction.
I suppose “AI big bad” justify it for some. But for me there should be a logical explanation behind if we would began to prosecute works of fiction why some will be prosecuted and why other will not. Specially when the one that’s being prosecuted is just regurgitating the human written stories about CP that are not being prosecuted nowadays.
I essentially think that a work of fiction should never be prosecuted to begin with, no matter the topic. And I also think that an AI writing about CP is no worse than an actual human doing the same thing.
I’m unfamiliar with the exact situation here, but when it comes to generative AI as I understand it, CP image output also means CP images in the training data.
That may not strictly be true, but it is certainly worth investigating at minimum.
Common misconception. AI can take an image of a child and an image of a naked woman and produce an image of a naked child (who does not resemble either the child or the woman). There’s no need for actual CP in the dataset.
The problem with AI generated CP is that if they’re legal, it opens a new line of defense for actual CP. You would need to prove the content is not AI to convince real abusers. This is why it can’t be made legal, it needs to be prosecuted like real CP to be sure to convict actual abusers.
This is an incredibly itchy and complicated theme. So I will try not go go really further into it.
But prosecute what is essentially a work of fiction seems bad.
This it not even a topic new to the AI. CP has been wildly represented in both written and graphical media. And the consensus in most free countries is not to prosecute those as they are a work of fiction.
I cannot think why an AI written CP fiction is different from human written CP fiction.
I suppose “AI big bad” justify it for some. But for me there should be a logical explanation behind if we would began to prosecute works of fiction why some will be prosecuted and why other will not. Specially when the one that’s being prosecuted is just regurgitating the human written stories about CP that are not being prosecuted nowadays.
I essentially think that a work of fiction should never be prosecuted to begin with, no matter the topic. And I also think that an AI writing about CP is no worse than an actual human doing the same thing.
I’m unfamiliar with the exact situation here, but when it comes to generative AI as I understand it, CP image output also means CP images in the training data.
That may not strictly be true, but it is certainly worth investigating at minimum.
Common misconception. AI can take an image of a child and an image of a naked woman and produce an image of a naked child (who does not resemble either the child or the woman). There’s no need for actual CP in the dataset.