The decision could set a precedent for future monitoring of people convicted of indecent image offences

A sex offender convicted of making more than 1,000 indecent images of children has been banned from using any “AI creating tools” for the next five years in the first known case of its kind.

Anthony Dover, 48, was ordered by a UK court “not to use, visit or access” artificial intelligence generation tools without the prior permission of police as a condition of a sexual harm prevention order imposed in February.

The ban prohibits him from using tools such as text-to-image generators, which can make lifelike pictures based on a written command, and “nudifying” websites used to make explicit “deepfakes”.

Dover, who was given a community order and £200 fine, has also been explicitly ordered not to use Stable Diffusion software, which has reportedly been exploited by paedophiles to create hyper-realistic child sexual abuse material, according to records from a sentencing hearing at Poole magistrates court.

  • Dran@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    7 months ago

    That would be true, it’d be pretty difficult to build a model without any pictures of children at all, and then try and describe to the model how to alter an adult to make a child. Is anyone asking for that though? To make it illegal to have regular pictures of children in these datasets?

    • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      7 months ago

      No but it is a reason why generating csam should be illegal. You’re using data trained on pictures of real kids

      • Dran@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        7 months ago

        I’m not arguing whether or not it should be legal, I was just offering my first hand experience in regards to the capabilities of these local models since people seem to be confused as to how this actually works.

        • PotatoKat@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          7 months ago

          Is anyone asking for that though? To make it illegal to have regular pictures of children in these datasets?

          I was responding to this part of your comment which directly refers to legality

          • Dran@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            7 months ago

            I guess I just misunderstood what you were arguing then. For posterity: I believe datasets containing children is fine, datasets containing csam is not, and the legality of generating csam should be left up to psychologists on whether or not it is a societal net benefit. Whichever way is better for children that exist is my vote.