Using AI to mitigate the pedo problem - yea or nay?
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (57)
sorted by:
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."
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.