Steven Anderegg allegedly used the Stable Diffusion AI model to generate photos; if convicted, he could face up to 70 years in prison

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/15863526

Steven Anderegg allegedly used the Stable Diffusion AI model to generate photos; if convicted, he could face up to 70 years in prison

  • Daxtron2@startrek.websiteEnglish
    91·
    6 months ago

    No that’s not necessarily true at all. You can take a stock stable diffusion model and output these images right Now without additional training. The whole point of diffusion models is that you don’t need 100% training data coverage to create new images outside of the original dataset. Having learned the concept of child from any normal image set of children and learning the concept of nudity/porn from legal adult images is more than enough to create a blended concept of the two.

    • zaph@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      17·
      6 months ago

      Having learned the concept of child from any normal image set of children

      Those children are the abuse victims.

      • Bananigans@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        Having never used an AI generator, generic generated images wouldn’t be an actual match to the dataset images, right? It would just be generating features it understands to be associated with the concept of a child, which would make the claim that the dataset children are the abuse targets a stretch, unless there’s some other direct or indirect harm to them. An immediate exception being a person writing a prompt attempting to create a specific facsimile of an individual.

        • zaph@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          22·
          6 months ago

          Section 1466A of Title 18, United States Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene.

          That’s nice, still illegal.

            • zaph@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              11·
              6 months ago

              The thread is discussing why it’s considered abuse if you can’t point to a victim. The answer turned out to be “because the law says so.”

              • Bananigans@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                1·
                6 months ago

                If you read the law you posted, it doesn’t actually address the question of victimhood. Also, I don’t really get why you’re still trying to force an unrelated point into this part of the discussion. Maybe find another place in the thread where someone thinks it’s legal and go talk to them.

                • zaph@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  If you don’t think you sound like you’re saying it’s legal/should be legal I have very bad news for you.

                  • Bananigans@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
                    1·
                    6 months ago

                    Seeing that it’s been explicitly stated that that’s not the case, you strike me as a dude that cares less about the meaning of words than the opportunity to argue about them.

        • zaph@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12·
          6 months ago

          Then it’s abuse because the law says so and how the images are generated is irrelevant.

          • Daxtron2@startrek.websiteEnglish
            21·
            6 months ago

            Believe it or not, US law isn’t the moral center of the universe not to mention its disproportionate use against groups it doesn’t like.