Using AI to mitigate the pedo problem - yea or nay?
(twitter.com)
Comments (57)
sorted by:
Nope. That just increases tolerance of pedos and leads to normalizing it.
Worked perfectly for homosexuals in the past 50 years, eh? They're super-normal now. You can take any claim made by the gays and swap the word "paedophile" in? It is interchangeable, as was intended from the beginning.
The best way to protect children is to eradicate this deviancy without tolerance, pity or mercy. The second best way to protect children is to abolish public schools. The third best way to protect children is to outlaw most vaccines.
How antisemitic of you.
First: Ew.
Second...both sides are partially right, partially wrong, and partially retarded.
To the pro-porn side...I'm rather suspicious of anyone who says how great CP or pseudo-CP is. Obviously. Major warning sign.
To the anti-porn argument here...a lot of issues:
I mean, there's already plenty of things it could be trained on, and it doesn't have to be real CP.
Worst part of the argument by far, I'd say. Starts with "only if you assume," and then makes a massive assumption. Because, take these people who would go on to abuse a child. The first question is, would they have still abused a child if they hadn't had access to the porn? I'd argue yes. Just like how video games don't make you murder, porn doesn't make you rape. Now, before anyone gets at me, I've said before I'm not a fan of porn. This is not an argument for porn, just an argument against the point that porn and real-world abuse are linked like is being assumed here.
Usually consensual, though. Just like guns and video games don't cause shootings, anyone who is influenced enough to do something heinous, already had screws loose, and would have been triggered by something else anyway. Violent fiction doesn't create violence, and sexual fiction doesn't create rape.
Violent people create violence, and rapists create rape.
Inclined to agree here, though. Bad arguments led up to it, but I think the conclusion is still largely correct. Not that there's necessarily any easy stopping it, though, but that's a separate issue.
Porn doesn't make people rape, but it normalized promiscuity. With children, though, all sexual activity is immoral and illegal.
CP does make people rape or rather indulging deviant sexual urges makes you more likely to carry them out in real life. There's plenty of readily available information it so I'm not sure why yall keep trying to use video games as an example for something completely different
They're using the same "logic" eh? Exposure to X will cause an increase in X behavior too. So (they tell us) seeing gun violence in a game makes you carry out gun violence IRL but this is obviously not true.
The thing is? Suppose thou have a "rape fetish" (both males & females can have it, it's not super-rare or anything). You could be encouraged to seek out a consenting adult & good times (hopefully) follow! Not a crime.
However? If you're a MAP you could be encouraged to try to carry out the classic "Lolita" fantasy (aggressive minor wants your 'love') which is ALWAYS illegal.
I toned down my reply after rereading yours. We don't need to compare to video games as an example when we have a shit ton of data on how and why sex offenders offend. It is completely unnecessary because just like we have studies on video games not causing violence we have studies on how deviant sexual arousal does. Watching CP, is the number one indicator of future sexual offense. People do not get less into their fetishist as they indulge in it.
You are correct on your last point. The thing that frustrates me most is people insisting on comparing it to video games because it seems like bad faith
As always this person is willfully ignoring how many female pedophiles there are and what a huge part of the problem it is.
Well said!
Like there aren't women paedos, eh? Not as many, but they're very real. Homo paedos, both male & female, are far beyond their demographic % in going after the children. 5-6% of the general population is "the gays" (says endless studies, "10%" is a made-up number) but I'd guess 50% of all paedos are same-sex predators.
It's true though. Allowing widespread distribution of CP would normalize it. This is the plan the homosexualists had from the beginning, some 50 years ago.
Yes they would abuse a child if they were given access to cp. Indulging in deviant sexual arousal makes you more likely to offend. Yall keep relying on these retarded comparisons to video games because you don't want to acknowledge the truth. We know video games don't make you more violent just like we know deviant sexual arousal does. There's no need for the false comparison in the first place. It makes it highly suspicious that you would even say this
She immediately cited evidence that porn exposure affects behavior, and yet you're still calling it an assumption... wild.
Remember when prostitution was illegal and less people had access to prostitutes?
Remember when hard drugs were illegal and less people had access to hard drugs?
Remember when faggotry was illegal and less people were degenerates?
Every single fucking time the left slides us down a slippery slope we are shocked to discover a massive increase in that which they claim will be mitigated by access. Rampant promiscuity, rampant drug abuse, and rampant degeneracy are our current reality all because some fucking dipshit said that everything would be fine without checks and balances.
Fuck all you immoral, hedonistic faggots. We aren't buying your shit anymore.
Remember when "sex education" was forced on public schools on the premise that it would reduce STDs, youth pregnancy & so forth? I do. I was there in Jr. High in 1976 when "lifestyle education" indoctrination started in my Province. And yes, homosexuality as normal was a big part of it.
Good thing teen pregnancy rates plummeted, eh? Oh wait... 😡
Pedophilia is more often than not not purely an attraction to the kids themselves, but to the taboo and degeneracy of the act. The evilness of it is what turns them on, which is why things like Early Porn Introduction and Grooming are such an integral part of the overall problem.
In this way, the AI porn would probably make the problem worse, as the normalization of "jerking it to something so awful" will lower the enjoyment they get out of it and lead them to further and more fucked acts a lot faster. Whether that's forcing it on other people (like BLACKED spammers do) or getting further down the rabbit hole (like trannies and cucks do).
I have to agree with @Slatzism. Accessibility does not always satiate demand for sexual acts, it actually sometimes increases it. Legalization of prostitution in Europe exploded demand to the point that biker gangs are still forcing runaways, drug addicts, and Slavic immigrants into brothels because there simply aren't enough women willing to do it, but there's tons of money to be made.
Not sure about the larger point about AI porn though. I think that'll eventually supplant the industry, if for no other reason because the fake will be virtually indistinguishable from the real.
I know for an absolute fact that "AI porn" is blowing up in popularity for still images (both 2d and 3d are amazing quality), and videos are making headway. I think it's entirely inevitable that AI video may completely supplant the real stuff once it can fix its 'object permanence' problems and keep scenes and motions consistent. Whoever this poster is is fucking retarded for suggesting that it's not taking off, at the very least.
I don't tend to like to engage with this subject much because I have an autistic fixation on a question that I never get a satisfactory response for; if violence in all my media isn't making me a mass-murderer, why would sex make me a rapist-to-be? I hear "it just does" and "get in the woodchipper" (even though I haven't advocated for anything) as general responses, I just need a logical (and ultimately legal, laws will cover this) reason to build an argument off of for every other instance of explaining it. We had this problem with Jack Thompson for violence, with Anita for sexism/racism, and now generically for cheese pizza. If Jack and Anita were retards, why is this one right? I don't know how to reconcile "it's not real" and "it's training you to want to do it" logically.
I grew up in the 90s being berated with "weed is a gateway drug!!!" being slung at me from every direction. Both my mom and sister are heavy tokers, but neither have expressed interest in meth, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, pain-killers, or anything else. I don't drink, smoke, or toke at all despite growing up in the same house my whole life. I don't even drink coffee. If weed has not resulted in them spiraling out of control, and it significantly affects the body's chemistry, why would porn affect someone more, or differently? Why would it convince them to "try it?"
I worry what this one will do to my reputation here. I hope you all can understand the good will with which I ask these questions.
as a general rule, i tend to avoid engaging in these discussions, as it's so easy to get accused of one thing or another, but I think the biggest concern isn't whether or not it becomes a "gateway drug" for actual abuse or 'satiates' pedos and keeps them from abusing children, it's that as ai gets better and better at creating realistic depictions, it may become a shield for actual abuse. "it's not real, it's just ai, I swear!" if you will.
as to your actual question, there seems to be two major arguments, social normalization (ie: it becomes socially acceptable and breaks down the cultural taboo against sexual abuse of children), and that pedophilia is less about sex than it is about power and/or sadism (ie: the thrill comes from having power over someone else and/or the damage it does to the child). I don't know if that answers your question, but it's the best i've got.
I do not expect definitive answers from anyone at all, don't worry about that. Just being able to articulate specific arguments is good enough for me. I think of it like a trellis for a vine to grow on; I need something to work with or I can't go anywhere with the thought.
it can be hard to articulate an argument when there's an emotional element to it, which is unavoidable with anything even remotely related to pedophilia. it's a taboo that crosses species, let alone cultures, to one degree or another.
This slippery slope was heavily simplified for marketing slogans, but it wasn't wrong.
Where I grew up (and likely most areas of the country) the guy selling you weed was also the guy selling you the harder stuff too. He had vested interest in getting you addicted to more expensive, more addictive stuff. Including lacing it in the weed he was selling you if necessary.
Not to mention for a lot of people their introduction to weed comes from a place of "wanting to rebel" or "social pressures" both of which will only increase the chances of them moving on to higher "party drugs" with time.
Most people who heard the slogan assumed incorrectly that "you'll need cocaine to get the same high as weed eventually!" when the reality is "people who do X have a much higher chance of moving onto Y" and it was a better idea to keep your chances nearer 0% by simply never doing it in the first place.
A good amount of people will never have issue in this regard, and if kept in a healthy society, with a healthy community and mental state, the chances of it going wrong are probably pretty low. This applies to pot and porn alike.
But do you think we live in such a world? Do most people have such resilience and self-control? Should we always assume something will be used in the most optimal method and environment when making our judgements and decisions of it, or do we shame it because of how horribly wrong it can go?
I never met anyone offering me hard drugs to get me addicted, "first hit's free" and all the boomer DARE propaganda. The only people I ever knew who were willing to suck dick for drugs didn't actually want the drugs.
Lol, he ain't gonna offer it free. That's propaganda to simplify it. The same way abstinence is taught rather than the nuances of safer sex.
But just like every other form of salesmanship, it being there massively increases your chance of buying it. These are salesmen, they know how to sell you things. Even if they are dealing out of a dirty trap house, the same techniques still apply and will be used as they would at a car dealership or furniture store.
So, while you might be someone who is able to not fall for those tricks, they work on the majority of people consistently. That's why they are taught and used.
You haven't met enough women then. This is usually how they start, sucking dick to get free drugs gleefully before it turns into "I hate this but I need it." Shit its why drug dealers always have girlfriends lined up, even if they are ugly goblin men.
I agree, it is very real. Men too, plenty of hardcore addicts will be "gay for pay" because getting high is more important than, well, anything else! Plenty of homos eager to exploit them, now that it's normalized & open in society.
Once young people hop onto the drink/drugs bandwagon? They're very likely to be wanting to go "one step higher" and at least try harder drugs.
I once knew a group of pot-smoking ex-bikers who only smoked & drank for over a decade. They almost self-destructed after one of them got into the cocaine & it spread to most of them. They all went through hell but managed to dig out together.
I think their answer to "want something harder" now is "No thank you, and if you ever ask me again I will smash your face in."
I think guys fall into the camp he was talking about of people who don't even want the drugs but are so addicted that they will do it anyway. The methheads on Tiger King I think were great examples, a bunch of guys who'd probably be massive homophobes but were doing gay shit because they just needed that hit.
I don't doubt there are also plenty of gays willing to suck dick for the taste and the free drugs, however. The same way plenty of slutty dumb women are.
I do think this is less likely than it seems. Sure there are probably adrenaline seekers out there happy to jump to coke for the thrill, but few people are getting on fentanyl or meth to "go higher."
I think this idea comes from trying to put all drugs in the same category and temptations. Things like molly and coke and other "party drugs" absolutely are mostly young/rich people wanting to go higher, while "street drugs" like heroin and crack are likely more like a stumble in to.
DARE and other programs tried to muddle down thier message for literal children, the only people who'd such a simple form would work on. But then those kids became teenagers and instantly rebelled like teens do, and because of it they treat DARE messaging like some gospel everyone believed.
Yeah, I think a definition of "addict" includes those who don't want the drug, but have to have it anyhow. By any means necessary, usually. WS Burroughs wrote a lot how every junkie wants to kick, especially when they don't have enough junk. But they still go get the junk anyhow.
I agree that not all pot smokers will go on to higher drugs, by far most will not. But as the raw # of potheads rises? So does the raw # of hard drug users too. I think a certain baseline % exists. I think there's a higher correlation between cigarettes and hard drugs than pot, but that's probably just me 😸
And yeah, telling teens not to do something, while at the same time saying "If you DO do it? Here's how!" isn't the best idea :/
This topic deserves more complexity than it's received over the Gamergate years, but I would argue that the vast majority of video game violence is sublimated into acts that most people would consider somewhat justified. I firmly believe COD and Battlefield drove up army recruitment in the same way Top Gun did for the Navy and Air Force.
GTA allows you to kill anyone, but it's cartoony. RPGs probably have the least amount of mitigation, but I don't know if you could say they genuinely promote immoral violence.
Why would sex or porn make you into a potential rapist? The vast majority of porn is roleplayed as consensual. When it comes to children, though, any sexual contact is by definition nonconsensual. Any thirst a pedo gets from CSAM is impossible to morally satisfy.
Sex itself should not be equated to violence as a public commodity. There are myriad justified reasons for the public application of violence, but none for the public display of sex, and in fact there is a certain point past which most people can agree that cultural familiarization with sex is degrading. Instagram crossed this point a long time ago, and Onlyfans is finishing the job. It creates a false, hollow, predatory, soul-sucking environment.
One of the oldest grooming tactics in the book is familiarizing children with porn. Individuals who are conditioned to treat low-level deviancy as normal will be more open to higher levels. I don't see a way that AI-driven CSAM won't make that tactic more effective on several levels.
Violence having wide-spread societal use vs. sex having extremely limited use and purpose is convincing, thank you.
Boomer hippies pushed "violence is not the answer" specifically because they were grooming and sexualizing children, and wanted a population of docile, obedient sheep that wouldn't do anything about it.
Look at the UK to see how it worked. And now the "extreme measures" being taken against the rioters for falling out of line.
best argument so far. If people were worried how accessible porn is to kids, boy howdy are they in for a rude awakening when they see AI's accessibility.
We should at the very least be treating access to AI the same as access to porn.
I agree. This is why the same "teachers" who advocated for homosexuality to be taught to little kids are now pushing CP/trans on them too.
We conservatives don't care if your books have "questionable" content, just keep them the hell away from the children! Especially other people's kids.
It is (usually) part of the grooming process: show them CP and erode their resistance to it. Same as any Classical Conditioning, eh? Like in overcoming a fear of spiders.
The difference here is that the process of creating cp involves victimizing children. Even AI-generated cp, since the AI would require the real thing to train on before it could generate convincing images. But on the other hand, after that training was done, it could potentially flood the market such that it's no longer profitable to make the real thing.
I don't understand why people keep trying to use this logic.
I just asked an AI to show me a picture of a giraffe in a space suit. It complied successfully. I very much doubt it was trained on a gallery of giraffes in space suits.
It "looked at" a ton of images of giraffes, and a ton of images of space suits. Ai doesn't actually create anything (not yet) it just mimics stuff in a hopefully recognizable way.
That said? I agree: I don't think it "needs to study CP to make CP" in exactly the way you describe. It can just squash multiple themes together without "studying" that specific set before.
Correct. It is the same as with any psychological problem. If someone is harboring negative feelings you do not want them to continue harboring and ruminating on them. Naturally except for trannies. We've thrown out decades of practical mental health experience and decided the best way to help them is to affirm their delusions because trans rights are human rights bigot.
Nay because supply and acceptability fuels more demand, and if it's realistic and "flooding the market" there's not a good way to tell when it's real or not. You wouldn't be killing the economic demand, but you'd kill any possibility of real investigations.
Simple as. "Should we use X to Y" vs. "should we ban X being used for Y" presumes that the government has any business making a choice either way. Fuck off with that woman-brained appeal-to-authority false dichotomy.
Yep. There's two possible outcomes. As AI image and video generation improves, photorealistic video of anything becomes available to anyone at any time with minimal investment, or an authoritarian hell state where the government is constantly scanning your devices and communications for evidence of wrong think.
Believe it or not, the reality in which weirdos can generate infinite videos of whatever their extremely specific fetish is is the more desirable of these two futures.
These are the only two options outside of butlerian jihad. The genie is already emerging from the bottle and promising wishes to whoever will free him and make him powerful.
I'd say the bigger issue is the normalisation through social media to sexualise first very young teens to slippery slope to kids. The left have a habit of projecting genuine concerns onto fictional work even with AI having genuine issues, when how long does it take their social media platforms to have a rampant pedophilia problem?
AI porn in general is a bit of a Pandora's box as it could usurp using actual people to make porn and thereby shutting down that ruinous industry but at best it's a bandaid to the underlying issue of loss of a united sense of morals.
More porn creates more addicts. Fact.
I think it's more like "easy access" to p0rn creates more addicts. People tend to seek "more more more!" in life. Thrills, money, p0rn &etc. After a while vanilla sex just doesn't work like it used to and many rabbit holes await! Including CP, plenty of hentai out there. Er, so I was told...
I don't trust anyone who tries to take control of an emerging technology in the name of moral righteousness. Too often that's just a cloak to hide nefarious intent. I think the correct course of action here is to largely leave AI unimpeded regardless of what images are being generated with it and focus on purging the pedos themselves.
What a bizarre concept that pedos are businessmen looking to sell a profitable product when, aside from a few intelligence assets, they're just freaks pooling their stashes.
Barter is a form of profit-taking too.
Two locals (male & female around age 40) made many animal torture/snuff videos & child p0rn too. Apparently they planned to make CP snuff. They had a group of ~80 "friends" around the world trading it too. To join the group you have to make it to share it too.
So not "for profit" but still a "cottage industry" eh?
Maybe pricing isn't the allocation mechanism, but there's still a supply and demand relationship.
Fuck no. It will probably just increase in demand. Sadly.
Use AI to mitigate the CHOMO problem? I could see that working. If you're talking about something in the vein of Terminator.
How about we (as in police) just kill pedophiles on the spot every time they get caught? Sounds like a better move
Gary Plauche approved.
Only solution is prison or a gun.
Indulging deviant sexual arousal only increases likelihood of offending
Look, I care as much as the next person about the victimization of children facilitated by our increasingly automated society, but that doesn't mean I'm completely sold yet on training AI kill bots to hunt down predators. Unless we can somehow ensure that the bots won't mistakenly harm any children themselves in the execution of their directive, the tech just isn't there yet.
Look at the state of our society after some 6 decades of porn. Adding more degenerate porn will not solve anything.
i'm in total agreement with using AI to solve the pedo problem! let's use it to find them faster so we can kill them.
Porn seems to have heavily reduced rapes. Thing is porn was something applied to the everyman. IE healthy normal individuals. CP however, really only ever is sought out by people w/ an obvious screw loose. A healthy man should want to find a woman who is capable of having children, something is wrong for that to be warped.
So the question is; would open access reduce incident(rape) for people who are ill(pedos)? From what I can gather on statistics(5 minutes or searching, so not too concrete), the rate of child sexual abuse hasn't been going down DESPITE an explosion of access to CP for anyone who really wants to seek it out.(darkweb, torrents, apparently a fucking creepy pedo wank scene on facebook).
The rate hasn't been going up either, so MAYBE you could justify that there'd be no new victims, but that's suspect, and I'd think 99% of people would say the slippery slope is not a fallacy here. At least I hope to God it'd be 99% of people
12 gauge buckshot mitigates the pedo problem just fine.