• FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think you haven’t made much use of image-generating AIs. They’re quite capable of reinterpreting images into different styles. A very common use case for me is to draw a sketch of something and then tell an image AI to turn it photorealistic. The “automated collage” approach you describe is simply not how they work, it’s a common misconception. Image AIs very much can create imagery of things that weren’t explicitly in their training set, they’re not just regurgitating pasted-together snippets.

    You’re also assuming that there are no literal photographs of children’s genitals in medical literature. Again, I haven’t exactly gone looking, but I’m sure there are some out there. Doctors can’t afford to be prudish.

    And finally, you can get plenty pornographic without even specifically showing off genitals.

    • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, so you mean the photos in the training dataset that violate medical privacy, because parents who consented to photos of their child being included in textbooks and medical journals for educational purposes didn’t consent to photos of their child being used for AI-generated child porn for the sexual gratification of paedophiles? The only way photos of children from medical literature would be ethical to use for child porn is if the parents of the child have consented to that usage. Having had surgery last year, where photos were taken, I can confirm there are extensive consent forms to be filled out for what medical professionals can record (photos, videos, livestreaming, etc), and what they can use the visual records for (research, education/training, sharing cosmetic outcomes on social media, etc). Parents that will have checked the “can use photos of my child for research and education” will not have given informed consent for those photos to be inserted into an AI model for child porn, and are unlikely to give consent if “child porn AI” is a separate box on the consent form.

      So… yeah, you’re not convincing me using medical photos of vulnerable children in hospital settings to create fapping material for paedophiles is an ethical use of AI technology.

      And an AI without photos of lions is never going to be able to produce a photorealistic lion, even if you gave it a sketch of a lion, because it would have no frame of reference for what a lion is supposed to look like. It would make its best guess, which is fine for when it’s something that doesn’t really exist - but when humans know what a lion is meant to look like, they’ll know when an AI botches it.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, so you mean the photos in the training dataset that violate medical privacy

        If they’re published in a textbook then they’re not private.

        will not have given informed consent for those photos to be inserted into an AI model for child porn

        Again, an AI model doesn’t have to be created specifically for the purpose of child porn in order for it to be able to generate child porn. Most of these AI image models are very general purpose, they can create images of all kinds of things.

        We’re going in circles here and you’re just getting angrier in your responses, I don’t think this is headed anywhere useful at this point.

        • frog 🐸@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope, this is headed nowhere useful, because we have a fundamentally different sense of ethics.