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.

  • @Mango
    link
    English
    352 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      532 months ago

      Because they are using images of real children.

      • Flying SquidM
        link
        English
        252 months ago

        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
          link
          English
          202 months ago

          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.

          • Flying SquidM
            link
            English
            222 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 months ago

            Wouldn’t that generate images of children with small-sized adult bodies?

            If it doesn’t know what a child’s body looks like, it can’t just figure it out.

            • JohnEdwa
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 months ago

              The datasets will have enough images of kids in bikinis and underwear from stock photos and clothes shop listings etc to figure that part out rather easily.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          52 months 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

          Disclaimer

          I am not condoning, endorsing, or suggesting this

        • @Organichedgehog
          link
          English
          -72 months ago

          actually, how about not looking into state-sponsored CP

          • Flying SquidM
            link
            English
            92 months ago

            I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

            • @Organichedgehog
              link
              English
              -12 months ago

              “it would probably be worth seeing if that did anything to make pedophiles less likely to act out on their desires.”

              What’s the implication here? You’re saying we should look into placating child predators by creating AI CP for them to consume?

              • Flying SquidM
                link
                English
                42 months ago

                That would be worth a scientific study, don’t you think? Isn’t it worth trying to find ways to stop child predators before they become predators?

                You seem to think I’m suggesting that the UK government create childporn.gov.uk or something.

      • @Mango
        link
        English
        -42 months ago

        Which means?

        • Jake Farm
          link
          fedilink
          English
          72 months ago

          Its a form of stalking, probably makes it more likely for them to rape that child, even if they don’t wind up doing that it would still qualify as a form of revenge porn.

          • @Mango
            link
            English
            22 months ago

            It’s not stalking and “probably” shouldn’t rouse a courtroom.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              It is when they are commissioning these “works”.

              Ed8t: To be clear, that’s what happened here.

              • @Mango
                link
                English
                32 months ago

                Commissioning as in buying? I’m not sure how that changes it to stalking.

                IMO, the worst part about it is that there’s someone else out there who thinks less of me because there’s some naked imagery of me.

                • @GreenKnight23
                  link
                  English
                  32 months ago

                  People will always find ways to think less about you.

                  For example, I think less of you because your comments support pedophilia.

                  • @Mango
                    link
                    English
                    -12 months ago

                    Why should I care what someone likes so long as they keep it to themselves?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  22 months ago

                  Commissioning as in a buyer has an interest in a particular child. They ask the guy using ai to make a custom bit of CSAM, so the buyer can have CSAM of that specific child.

                  That kind of commissioning.

                  • @Mango
                    link
                    English
                    02 months ago

                    Okay, but if I ask someone to draw me a picture of Nicholas Cage naked, is that stalking him? What if I have Nick Cage pictures all over my walls and even ceiling and my phone wallpaper? Is that stalking? Does it help if I’m really horny for him? And I touch myself?

              • @Mango
                link
                English
                -32 months ago

                I can buy photos of Robert Downey Junior from Marvel Studios and that’s not stalking.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      162 months ago

      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
        link
        English
        242 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          282 months ago

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

          • @Zorque
            link
            English
            202 months ago

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

          • @FourPacketsOfPeanuts
            link
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Relevant part of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (UK)

            Section 65 (regarding what “child” means in the context of indecent images)

            (6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—

            (a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or

            (b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.

            (end quote)

            In other words, an image can be treated as an indecent image of a child if the “impression conveyed” is that the person is under 18, even if that person has older “physical characteristics”.

            This legislation is more directed at non photographic imagery (so hentai / CGI etc) and the reference to physical characteristics is apparently a reference to a large breasts or “1000 year old vampire teeth” not being viable as an excuse that the image doesn’t give the impression of a child.

            I can’t recall specifically what legislation was used regarding the age play couple I referenced. I can’t find a specific law that says it’s wrong for a photograph of an adult to appear underage. So it may just be that they were reported to police because they shared their images online without context. I don’t know if they were subsequently prosecuted.

        • AmidFuror
          link
          fedilink
          172 months 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.

        • @Mango
          link
          English
          42 months ago

          Removed by mod

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          32 months 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.

        • @yamanii
          link
          English
          12 months ago

          Ah now it makes sense.

      • @NotMyOldRedditName
        link
        English
        42 months 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
        link
        English
        42 months 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.

    • Dr. Wesker
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        English
        52 months ago

        Okay. Who is harmed and how?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 months ago

          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?

          • @Cryophilia
            link
            English
            22 months ago

            Most AI generated images are not of real, identifiable people. I agree that deepfake porn is bad, whether of a child or adult, but that’s a separate category.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 months ago

              You’re definitely right, and I’m aware. The smaller the sample size, though, the more likely an AI art generator would create something that looks very similar to a given individual.

              As well, some AI art generators accept prompt images to use as a starting point.

              • @Cryophilia
                link
                English
                12 months ago

                Ok but that’s a pretty niche thing to be worried about, is my point. You can’t apply that broadly to all AI porn.

          • @Mango
            link
            English
            -12 months ago

            As a child? No. In fact, I can milk that for pity money. As an adult, I can’t see how it matters. I don’t like it, but it doesn’t hurt me any.

            Also definitely no.

            Again, double no.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              To clarify, the second last question about your children was “would you be happy to …”

              If you wouldn’t be happy to, then why not?

              And if you would be happy to do that, then why? Lol

              • @Mango
                link
                English
                32 months ago

                You got me there. It’s definitely weird and gross and therefore no. That’s harm enough, but that’s more a matter of it being published and real. This dude doing it for himself is hardly different to me from fantasizing in your head or drawing in your sketchbook. That said, what was his AI training material? He’s also doing this for other people and encouraging rape and shit.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  32 months ago

                  What makes it different than imagining it or drawing it is that the AI is using real photos as training material. If the parents are knowingly providing images, that’s questionable. If the AI is discovering CSAM images, that’s horrible. If it’s using non-CSAM images of children without the knowing consent of the parents, that’s pretty bad too.

                  • @Mango
                    link
                    English
                    12 months ago

                    How is AI using real photos any different from a person using their real memory?