Veraxus

You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?

Disingenuous and misleading statement. No readily available AI is trained on CP.

So it’s wrong for it to be based on one child, but according to you the AI “art” (as you keep calling it) is okay as long as there are thousands of victims instead?

Disingenuous and misleading statement. I’m guessing you don’t understand how AI works. As for AI output, a randomly generated nonexistent person is nonexistent. Simple as that.

Sidenote: I disapprove of nonconsensual Photoshop and AI illustrations of real people, except for fair use cases such as satire. AI is just another illustrative tool, and the choice of tool is beside the point.

So you’re cool with images of 6 year olds being penetrated by a 40 year old as long as “tHe Ai DrEw iT sO nObOdY gOt HuRt”?

No, I am not. And that is still utterly unimportant. It doesn’t matter how I feel about someone’s fictitious illustrations, sculptures, writings, or anything else created by a person or AI that is wholly fictitious.

That’s literally the whole point I am making: It doesn’t matter how I feel about it, it doesn’t matter how YOU feel about it. It’s not real. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to judge someone else’s art.

Careful, any time I point this out, the fascists come out of the woodwork to call me a pedo.

Criminalizing the creation, possession, or viewing of entirely artificial artwork is beyond unethical; it’s extraordinarily evil. I don’t care if you find someone’s artwork gross, troubling, distasteful, immoral, etc… that’s art. Victimizing real people is not “art” or “speech” or “expression”… so as long as that isn’t happening there is no ethical grounds whatsoever for restricting a persons exercise of expression, especially in private.

Social consequences for creating, sharing, viewing certain artwork is one thing… but the government or law punishing someone for it is a different thing entirely.

That said, this specific case is different in that the doctor DID in fact victimize real children by using secret photos and recordings of them to create the images. That crosses way across the line that I laid out above. Additionally, he possessed actual CSAM (which he may have made himself), and so is absolutely guilty of sexually victimizing real children. That guy deserves everything he gets in prison.

DRM ONLY ever affects paying customers, ergo DRM is always unethical malware.

Also, let’s never forget how Ghostwire Tokyo had Denuvo patched IN over a year after release.

Imaginary, since peanuts grow underground like potatos.

If you must, consider things that are unlikely to kill other people. The furry little troublemakers definitely love birdseed and sunflowers…

I have a kid with a peanut allergy and when peanuts started showing up all over the place outside, we asked our neighbors the same thing: please stop giving the squirrels peanuts. We couldn’t let the kids go outside in their own backyard.

Thankfully, our neighbors are all generally really nice people and not child-murdering monsters, and actually stopped it.

People: Keep your peanuts to yourself and do not feed wildlife. Both of those things are common sense.

This is usually how FREE TRIALS work, though, and always has been.

Agreed. Leftists must not abide the consolidation or entrenchment of power & power (the two are the same).

Tankies justify this, and are therefore garden variety right wing authoritarians.