this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
378 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
81078 readers
4274 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are confusing LLMs with diffusion models. LLMs generate text, not images. They can be used as inputs to diffusion models and are thus usually intertwined but are not responsible for generating the images themselves. I am not completely refuting your point in general. Generative models are capable of generalising to an extend, so it is possible that such a system would be able to generate such images without having seen them. But how anatomically correct that would be is an entirely different question and the way these companies vastly sweep through the internet makes it very possible that these images were part of the training
Well yes, the LLMs are not the ones that actually generate the images. They basically act as a translator between the image generator and the human text input. Well, just the tokenizer probably. But that's beside the point. Both LLMs and image generators are generative AI. And have similar mechanisms. They both can create never-before seen content by mixing things it has "seen".
I'm not claiming that they didn't use CSAM to train their models. I'm just saying that's this is not definitive proof of it.
It's like claiming that you're a good mathematician because you can calculate 2+2. Good mathematicians can do that, but so can bad mathematicians.