It doesnt appear as if the cops generated any sexually explicit AI images of an underage girl. Is this accurate? Is there any legal precedent about AI CSAM yet? While that sort of content is of no interest to me I've been wondering about the ethics of it. How is it different than reading Marquis de Sade or William S. Burroughs (both have written very explicit scenes of violent and sexual abuse of children). Try reading the most fucked up part of Naked Lunch in a Walmart Subway sometime. It's a hoot.
> Is there any legal precedent about AI CSAM yet?
Is there specific case law concerning AI depictions? Maybe not, but it is already a federal crime to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possesses with intent to distribute "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" that (in simple terms) are both obscene and depict or appear to depict minors in sexually explicit scenarios, and there is very little reason to think that courts would carve out AI from this general prohibition.
18 USC Sec. 1446A: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
This was struck down in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition. A new bill, the PROTECT Act, came about. But it only bans CP artwork that is "virtually indistinguishable" from real photos. I suspect it too will be struck down if prosecutors attempt to use it.
> This was struck down in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition
No, it wasn't.
> A new bill, the PROTECT Act, came about.
This is a section added by the PROTECT Act. (The link includes reference to the law by which the section was added to the US code; one of the great things about LII is that it has added/amended information, not just the text.) It has nearly identical coverage to what was struck down, except that where what was struck down was struck down on the basis of not being limited strictly to obscene material, this added obscenity (by name in one place, and using the exact language of the Supreme Court standard for obscenity in another) to the former rule.
> But it only bans CP artwork that is "virtually indistinguishable" from real photos.
You are invited to read the text, this is simply false. (The PROTECT Act also added the “virtual identical” limitation you describe to the definitions applicable to the original offense, as well as adding this new one with the obscenity limitation, as a belt-and-suspenders approach — basically, the Supreme Court said that they could prohibit things that either meet the case law standard for obscenity or which has a sufficient nexus to actual come abuse, so the PROTECT Act took the original single prohibition and replaced it with two, one which was limited to be targeted on obscenity (18 USC §1446A) and one which was narrowed to what they felt might pass muster as sufficiently related to actual child abuse (the original prohibition with definitions at 18 USC § 2556, amended with the “virtually indistinguishable” restriction. The latter is the Constitutionally weaker of the two; that obscenity is not protected is well-established.)
Are there other sexually explicit scenarios which are federal crimes? I guess all of them will be a problem soon.
> Try reading the most fucked up part of Naked Lunch in a Walmart Subway sometime
I've read Naked Lunch, but I don't remember any descriptions of child abuse. Not saying I don't believe you, just wondering why I wouldn't remember the most fucked up part of a book.
What if you instruct the AI that the person is 18 but looks like a child? Is it a child then or is it 18? And who is to judge?
This is going to get interesting in future for sure.
And other way around, you generate a image that you explicitly prompt to be under age but to appear adult. By definitions this would also be illegal image to store or spread. And anyone not immediately destroying or reporting it on receiving it could be prosecuted.
Ah the anime defense. No, she’s not a child. She’s actually a thousand year old witch who was cursed to have the body of a pre-pubescent girl.
Some people argue that you need actual CSAM to produce AI CSAM. I don't think that's true, but in that case, it'd be different because it's a result of abuse, while books are not (directly).
If New Mexico wins, will any person be held responsible? Or will Snapchat pay a fine and move on?
I thought entrapment was illegal (that car dude that wanted to deal coke to save his company).
[dead]