141
What is the attraction to kids?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
141 points (85.8% liked)
No Stupid Questions
34916 readers
2276 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What about an artist just drawing it? Is that ok?
Or no, because the artist has seen children before?
It used to be nothing for parents to take pictures of their kids playing in the bath. Parents have been convicted and lost their children for it, though.
It's not OK make CSAM.
The origin of CSAM does not make it acceptable.
The SA in CSAM is sexual abuse. Who is being sexually abused in order to make a drawing?
I am not an expert in any field relating to any of this by any means, but we can all agree that CSAM is unequivocally reprehensible. Thusly many people will have severe issues with anything that normalizes it even remotely. That would be my knee jerk response anyway.
Well maybe we shouldn’t base our decisions on knee jerk responses.
Imo if nobody’s being hurt then it’s none of our business. If it helps these people to deal with their urges without actually hurting anyone then I think that’s unquestionably a good thing.
If it is in fact helping them, yes. It would be ideal to do a study of how it affects their self control before going that direction though I think, as some argue it would do the opposite.
Okay so… we agree?
And yes, some would argue the opposite. But I don’t think we should be creating laws without any actual proof one way or the other.
I don’t have enough information to have an opinion and I do agree with you that knee jerk reactions are not ideal. But choosing to allow it (at a time when AI generated media is starting to be regulated) is also a decision.
It almost certainly "helps" as many of these people as it encourages. The hedonistic effect is a phenomenon common to all humans, where a person indulging heavily in something that makes them feel good needs more and more extreme examples of it to maintain the baseline of satisfaction from it. Any harmful compulsion when indulged will fall victim to this effect.
Providing virtual explicit images of children might mollify some, but it will have an inflaming effect on just as many others, who will seek out increasingly realistic or visceral imagery, up to and including looking for real photos and/or exploiting real children. That in turn ensures a market for child exploitation.
So no, it's not harmless. Not remotely.
Wtf are you talking about? So if someone enjoys killing npcs in a video game they’ll start to need to kill people irl?
What year is this?
Yes, but it's wrong for very different reasons and severities. Murder vs murder porn, if you will. Both are bad and gross, but different, and that matters.
But that's irrelevant to my question, which no one actually answered.
I am curious about people's take on the difference between human creativity from memory vs AI "creativity" from training. The porn aspect is only relevant in that it's an edge case that makes the debate meaningful.
There are laws today that you can't copyright AI art, but we can copyright art that's based on a person's combined experiences. That seems arbitrary to me, and I'm trying to understand better.
I did answer your question. The answer is no.
There sure are a lot of groomers around here throwing out downvotes
There are also pedos pretending to be against AI generated child porn to cover their tracks.
If the artist is drawing naked children that isn’t for the sake of a book or something of similar nature there is a problem. This is also a disingenuous comparison an artist hasn’t been trained on hundreds to millions of children’s images and then fine tuned. There’s a lot of illegal content these models come across and then are hopefully tuned by human hands. So try another example