AI-created child sexual abuse images ‘threaten to overwhelm internet’::Internet Watch Foundation finds 3,000 AI-made abuse images breaking UK law
Holy hyperbole, batman! Threaten to overwhelm the internet!
Someone’s hungry for clicks today, eh, The Guardian?
AI-generated CSAM is illegal under the Protection of Children Act 1978, which criminalises the taking, distribution and possession of an “indecent photograph or pseudo photograph” of a child.
Aaaand there you go. This is nothing new. There have been laws on the books for decades to help deal with this exact problem. Someone just slapped “AI” on the story to gin up worry.
We were all worrying AI was going to murder us to save us from ourselves; turns out it’s going to do it by literally burying us in CASM.
Asimov was wrong!
They are trying to gather support for the new invasions into your privacy that are required “to save the poor children”
Those poor AI children!
I agree with your assessment wholly. There was a case in the US (don’t recall the details) maybe 15 years ago or so where the “cp” was actually drawings of the Simpson’s children nude. Judge held that it didn’t matter if it was real or fake. This sort of thing isn’t new.
I only came to comment that I would not have predicted that AI would be used this way, but am not at all surprised by it.
That was Australia, not the US.
Look under Australia in the following Wikipedia page.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors
would not have predicted
You must not have been on the internet for very long
Probably longer than most people but I often make the mistake of believing that humans tend to strive for good in spite of everything that indicates otherwise.
Some do. Some don’t. There will always be bad actors.
Didn’t the Simpson’s movie from 16 years ago get away with showing Bart’s genitals? Are we still leaning on the “know it when I see it” definition of sexually explicit material?
They do it in Dragon Ball as well. I think the point is that if it’s just passing nudity (i.e. a child being a child), then it’s not sexual.
The judge was later found to be hosting CP on his personal website, of a very similar nature.
What the heeeell is this true?
