https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/20/24009418/generative-ai-i...
I'd be hard pressed to prove that you definitely hadn't killed anybody ever.
Legally if it's asserted that these images are criminal because they are the result of being the product of an LLM trained on sources that contained CSAM then the requirement would be to prove that assertion.
With text and speech you could prompt the model to exactly reproduce a Sarah Silverman monologue and assert that proves her content was used in the training set, etc.
Here the defense would ask the prosecution to demonstrate how to extract a copy of original CSAM.
But your point is well taken, it's likely most image generation programs of this nature have been fed at least one image that was borderline jailbait and likely at least one that was well below the line.
I get where you are coming from but it doesn't seem actionable in any way that doesn't effectively legalize CSAM possession, so I think courts will have no choice but to put the burden of proof on the accused. If you play with fire then you'd better have the receipts.
Legally, possession of CSAM is against the law because there is an assumption that possession proves contribution to market demand, with an understanding that demand incentives production of supply, meaning there that with demand children will be harmed again to produce more content to satisfy the demand. In other words, the intent is to stop future harm. This is why people have been prosecuted for things like suggestive cartoons that have no real-life events behind them. It is not illegal on the grounds of past events. The actual abuse is illegal on its own standing.
The provenance of the imagery is irrelevant. What you need to prove is that your desire to have such imagery won't stimulate yourself or others to create new content with real people. If you could somehow prove that LLM content will satisfy all future thirst, problem solved! That would be world changing.
Violent video games prove contribution to market demand for FPS-style videos of mass shootings or carjackings, so can/should we ban Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto now?
(Note that the "market demand" argument is subtly different from the argument that the games directly cause people to become more violent, either in general or by encouraging specific copycat violence. Studies on [lack of] direct violence causation are weak and disputed.)
The link between consumption (without purchase) of CSAM and increased production of CSAM is assumed in the same way, isn't it?
The motives and situational dynamics of pedophiles filming child pornography, and gangs robbing or carjacking people on video in broad daylight, may be different in some ways, but in some ways they're not: both get direct benefit from the crime, regardless of the recordings; in both cases some (small) subset of people interested in watching the recordings may become more inclined to act out what they see, if it aligns with an already existing inclination toward pedophilia or violent crime. That's independent of whether they can make money or become famous for the crime, although money or infamy as additional motive is an additional problem.
As stated in the first comment, the law here is concerned about future production of imagery to satisfy demand, with its incentive to harm even more children. The business of creating CSAM material is well understood. It is, after all, an extension of the adult porn industry. The law didn't emerge out of someone sitting around dreaming up hypotheticals, it was in reaction to actual situations that the public didn't want to see continue. What is done is done, and there are other laws to deal with what is already done, but the law also seeks to prevent future harm. Outlawing the product so that there is no market for producers to sell into is the only way it knows how. It's overly blunt, is far from perfect, but it tries.
The business of committing mass shootings/carjackings to produce salable imagery is not well understood. Frankly, I've never heard of it before, and since you can't speak to it I take it that you haven't either. It is unclear why you decided to make it up. As before, I cannot think of any mass shooting that was considered "producing a product to sell" and not "deranged person acting out". Most importantly, even if it is a thing, since nobody is aware that it is happening there is no public will to see that line of business come to an end. Your attempt to find parallel is poorly considered.
The closest analogy, which still isn't great but is at least in the same universe, that might be found in your ramblings is a case of people wanting to own stolen car parts, incentivizing others to carry out carjackings to get ahold of stolen parts to sell. In reaction, you might make it illegal to possess stolen car parts with the intent to create a situation where someone trying to steal and sell stolen car parts ultimately doesn't have anyone to sell to, diminishing the incentive to carjack in the future. Of course, the law already does exactly that, so...
Even for regular porn, which is far lower risk/cost, AI generation is becoming preferable (as with most technologies, the leading use case for AI is porn).
So you'd think they would make youth services a good place to be for a child, right. After all, if that situation were to be only marginally better than child prostitution, there's no point to finding CSAM. Or at least, the point is not to protect children, since that is simply not what they're doing.
So how is youth services doing these days? Well ... NOT good. Regularly children run away from youth services to start doing child porn (ie. live off off an onlyfans account). There's a netflix series on the subject ("Young and locked up") which eventually, reluctantly shows the real problem, the outcome (ie. prison or street poverty).
In other words your argument doesn't really apply since the goal is not to improve children's well being. If that was the goal, these programs would do entirely different things.
Goals differ. There's people who go into government with the express purpose to "moralize" and arrest people for offenses. Obviously, to them it's the arresting part that's important, now how serious the offense was and CERTAINLY not if their actions actually help people. And then there's people who simply want a well-paying long-term job where they don't accomplish much. Ironically these are much less damaging, but they still seek to justify their own existence.
Both groups really, really, really want ALL image generation models to be considered inherently harmful, as you say.
I also can absolutely guarantee you: child services CANNOT protect a child from drugs. Child services CANNOT protect a child from prostitution or sex. Child services CANNOT protect a child from violence, whether they are violent themselves or victim. For the same reason the sea cannot protect fish from water. Sex, drugs and violence are pervasive in even the youngest groups in child services, with people either pretending they're not seeing it or in bad cases participating.
There is not a doubt in my mind that had the police instead done nothing at all the outcome for all those children would have been better off, not worse. Every last one.
Oh and not because their situation was great and didn't damage them or any bullshit like that. They would have been better off because child services was orders of magnitude worse, didn't help, and DID fuck up any chance at a future they had (a few, including me, went normally to school. Went, past tense, as in child services made that utterly impossible. Often kid were sent to "idiot-schools" because that got the institution more money, almost always the school or someone at school was the one positive influence in their lives and child services ... just ... doesn't ... care, about such things, brutally and violently changing the school. The kid that later committed suicide beat up the guard of BOTH the idiot school AND hit the "guard" at his previous school and after that got the principal to accept him back, by essentially staying, and sleeping, in the waiting chairs at his office for 3 straight days until he was allowed to talk, then biking to school for 3 hours every day)