https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/10/child_psychiatrist_sentenced_ai/
Perp said to have secretly recorded patients – and digitally undressed them using web neural networks
Yeah this is a scary, clickbaity headline meant to invoke a negative response about AI. AI is a tool, like a computer or pipe wrench. It can be used for good or bad.
The sicko got what he deserved, but the AI bit is rather over-the-top.
The part that freaks me out is more that he was in an influential position in children's lives and he was making images of the specific children who were his patients.
This is unfortunately not that uncommon. Pedos often work in child focused jobs. Very disturbing, and that's why background checks are important in those fields.
Not only pedos, in general sadistic people tend to try and get jobs which would give them the feeling of power over someone, and not all of them can be dictators, warlords, just politicians, even lowly prison guards or policemen, also cowardice is a factor. So - child-related jobs.
But, to be frank, I'm not sure background checks are going to do that much good. People of this kind tend to bunch together, help each other, and can either get past the radar rather easy or utilize these checks to discredit anybody who'd be a threat to them.
It's a complex matter.
Which makes you wonder why religious groups can get around the requirements. I am actually not against say the Church of LDS spending money to provide free therapy for children I just want those therapists held to the same standards we hold regular therapists too. Which includes sexual background screenings.
Is it honestly that surprising? Just because they are sexually attracted to kids does not mean they cannot love kids on an emotional level. I don’t think it’s impossible that there would be pedophiles who both love children and recognize that sexual and intimate contact is reprehensible.
Put differently, I would much rather hear “child psychiatrist caught with computer-generated CSAM modeled after his patients” than “child psychiatrist caught with nude photos of his patients” or “child psychiatrist charged with sexual assault of a minor”. Comparatively speaking, the first is really just computer-assisted thoughtcrime, while the others mean there was actual direct harm to a child.
Although in this particular instance, child psychiatrist is a bit too close to the child, in my opinion.
Exactly, it's not the AI bit, it's the rest of the story about how this dude was in a position of power to exploit children (and did so) that's just fucking sick.
I know people should usually google things, but that's not something that someone should really have in their search history! Lol
How come you are already using a short form, how often do you talk about this kind of thing???
CP got reworded to CSAM (child sexual abuse material) btw
afaik its because „porn“ is thought to imply consent
CSAM sounds like a cool weapons system, I dont want to tarnish that image nor believe that theres anyone out there who thinks "porn" implies consent, be it about kids or not
I think it's more to include anything that's sexually abusive instead of what is just pornograthic.
In this case there are several crimes, but in the other one mentioned about a korean there is nothing, only possession of generated content arguing that there is high realism (someone could say the same even of a sketch). To imprison for acts that have neither victims nor any harm either directly or indirectly, is more aberrant than possessing that.
PS: I'm just talking about legality and rights, I know it's controversial and I'm sure someone has something to argue against it, but if you're going to accuse me of being a pedo just get lost you moron.
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.
People getting way overexcited about AI at the moment. If a crime or perceived crime even remotely is related to AI it becomes the main focus.
Like the person who was hit by a self-driving car, the case was really about a hit and run drive that it hit the pedestrian first and throwing them into the self-driving car. Have the self-driving car not been there and it had been a human driver pretty much the same thing would have happened but they focus on the AI aspect.
If I used an AI to commit fraud it was me that committed the fraud not the AI but you can be damn sight certain that people would get hung up on that aspect of the case and not the me committing a crime bit.
It's the same as when Ford invented the transit van (I have no idea what the equivalent in the US market was). It was faster than most cars at the time, could carry heavier loads, and was physically larger. Inevitably it got used in a lot of bank robberies because the police literally couldn't keep up with it. And people started talking about maybe having a performance limit on vehicles, when really the actual solution was that everyone else just needed better cars. If they had actually implemented a performance limit, they would have held us back.
I thought it was obvious but ok I'll explain it to you. The story isn't really about AI, it involves an AI but really that's got absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was happening, so why we obsessing over it?
The guy committed a crime. And also as a separate event he used AI.
The AI did not enable him to commit the crime, the AI did not make the crime worse, the AI did not make the crime possible, and he did not use the AI to plan the crime. The use of the AI was entirely incidental to the crime.
Is it really fascists doing that? Literal fascists? I don't meet many of them in my daily life.
Just tell them you support a two state solution and a cease fire, then they'll become apparent to you.
If you have AI pornography of children, regardless of there being no real victim- you’re a fucking pedo.
Period. End of argument.
Get help.
Attempting to normalize and destigmatize representations of child sexual abuse by calling it art is extraordinarily evil.
Like Siesta by Arthur Berzinsh? It's childsimilar cherubs playing with actions extremely close to eproctophilia with an adult woman
Here's a piece of art by Balthus. It's of a young girl in a skirt, leg hiked up and you can see her underpants: https://www.wikiart.org/en/balthus/th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se-dreaming-1938
This piece controversial, but evocative, thought-provoking and says something about an innocent time in our youth and the change of demeanor sexuality brings when we become aware.
People may not like this, but if you can separate sexuality and understand that we were once "innocent" - meaning sex wasn't something we knew about, we just had these bodies we were told to hide in clothes, the painting takes on a whole new meaning.
I'm not advocating for fake cheese pizza photos, fuck those sickos, but art can appear to be one thing on first glance and then take on a new meaning as we study and understand more.
Your first passage about criminalizing art is 100% correct and 100% irrelevant. You cannot call porn art. Porn with adults, children, dogs, pumpkins - all that stuff is made for people to get off, not enjoy the emotions that real art provokes in people. Therefore we cannot compare criminalizing porn with criminalizing art.
There are edge cases, of course, when art might be provocative and considered immoral, and maybe even illegal sometimes. But that would be edge cases, highly debated.
Maybe noone would need to point out your pedophilia if you stopped conveniently ignoring that it's not possible to generate child porn ""AI Art"" without having child porn first..
Dont they often train the program with adult porn and then the ai just puts a childs face onto bodies generated from this training data? I imagine these ai companies are scraping data from popular pornsites or just paying for the data and these pornsites work hard not to have CP on them. The result is a childs face on a body too mature for it. Remember that some actual adult actresses have body proportions that many would consider underdeveloped and someone generating these pictures could regenerate till the ai uses these body proportions.
The point being is you don't need CP to train ai to make CP. I am not justifying any moral positions here, but pointing out a fact in ai technology.
Uh no, adult porno photo with child face edited in is just adult porno with child face edited in, I don't know anyone insane enough to claim it's child porn, and pedophiles don't like physically matured bodies so everyone loses.
You don't know what you're talking about.
In this case the guy did have real images but you don't need them. AI is kind of intelligent in a sort of hard to define way, it picks up on stuff.
It picked up that people like younger individuals in pornography, so it took that to the logical extreme. AI is weird because it's intelligence without any actual thought. But it can totally generate variations on things it's already seen, and a kid is just a variation on a young adult.
Ah yes, I don't know what I'm talking about it's just that guy happened to have real images just like they do every time because it's impossible to get your garbage model to produce cp otherwise.
You genuinely don’t think CSAM is used in the training of these AI models…?
Why exactly did you feel the need to jump in and defend something like this?
Criminalizing the creation, possession, or viewing of entirely artificial artwork is beyond unethical; it's extraordinarily evil.
No it isn't.
I don't care if you find someone's artwork gross, troubling, distasteful, immoral, etc... that's art.
No, it's child porn.
Careful, any time I point this out, the fascists come out of the woodwork to call me a pedo.
Can't imagine why.
You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?
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?
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"? I guess you could just set it as your desktop and phone wallpaper and everything would be fine. Let me know how that works out for you.
That's some stunning mental gymnastics right there.
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.
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.
It does matter how myself and wider society view disgusting content. It matters a lot. And society absolutely has a say of it's acceptance or otherwise to such content. You saying otherwise is absurd.
In the same way that I can't and shouldn't write something incrediblely racist and pretend it's 'art'. Even if AI made it.
Attempting to give AI child porn a pass, as you are doing for some baffling reason, absolutely will create further harm further down the line.
I’d say it’s because the person you’re replying to rightfully sees it as a slippery slope. If you say this fake image that didn’t directly harm anyone is illegal, what’s to stop you from saying some other fake image that’s much more in line with social tastes is also illegal? Ie an artwork made of human shit, for example. Most people would be repulsed by that. But it doesn’t change the fact that it could be art. As long as it doesn’t concretely harm someone, it’s hard to equate it to said harm.
It's child porn.
Child. Pornography.
It is not "Art".
The slippery slope is people like you confusing the two and trying to somehow justify CP as free speech/art.
I don't care how it is made. There is a line. This crosses it. Simple as that.
Oh that's very simple, it's irrelevant whether child porn generated by AI is legal or not, it's reality that you need to possess actual child porn to train AI with it before it can generate more.
You already incriminate yourself before generating the """art""".
I know you know this, but you are not crazy. I'm astonished you are being down voted so hard. The pedo apology is so strong it's making me not want to use Lemmy. This thread is worse than reddit.
Terrifying.
Indeed, it's making me want to go back to Reddit.
I left when the API price changes kicked in and at first Lemmy was alright, then the extremists turned up and the echo chamber in here is so ridiculous that there just isn't much point in being here.
Not just the pedo apologists (next step will be AI CP actually being posted here and people defending it as "art"), but also seeing that YouTube is trying to stop freeloaders leeching from it and somehow that's evil literally every single day and seeing how evil cars are literally every single day and seeing how Linux is the next coming of Jesus literally every single day (and I say that as a 20+ year Linux user) is incredibly tedious.
Sure, this existed on Reddit as well, but at least there was actually other content to dilute it and for the most part people were reasonable instead of the rabid extremism I'm seeing every day here. There is no way in hell I would have seen the up/downvote ratio like I'm seeing in this pedo apologist conversation on Reddit.
Maybe it's time to go back.
Pity. Oh well.
You realise the AI is being trained on pictures of real children, right?
Can you share a source? Just like how people utilize the internet to distribute CP, there are undoubtedly circles where people are using ml for CP. However my understanding is that by and large, popular models are not intentionally trained on any.
I am categorically not researching that.
Put it this way...
The pedofiles that are smart enough to not get caught and use technology like tor and encrypt everything and can figure out how to use stable diffusion will be the pedofiles that have custom models trained on real children.
And if you and me consider the possibility in a casual conversation online, they have also considered the possibility, heavily researched and implemented it if it's at all possible. And they know how to not get caught.
But it's okay, it's "art" after all and we can't ban art because that's evil.... Right... Right?
....okay, seeing as you haven't actually done any research, yet arrived at a conclusion, a conversation about this is going to be difficult.
Let's get more specific so we can have an actual conversation. When you say "the AI", what do you mean? Dall-e, midjourney, or some guy training and using their own model on a local computer?
Are you familiar with large models being able to compose concepts they've seen, to produce something not found in its training data?
What on earth makes you think I wish to have an extended conversation about this?
Child porn is not art. Even if AI made it.
Banning child porn is not immoral or evil.
Simple as that.
If you cannot accept that basic premise then I have nothing to say to you.
I have said literally nothing about ethics.
You used a technical assertion in your argument. Out of curiosity, I wanted to learn more and asked you for sources.
You can neither prove nor are you capable of discussing said technical assertion. I am now going to leave the conversation. Seeing as you can't prove or even discuss it, I'd hope you avoid using it in the future, or at least learn more about it.
I agree with what you are saying.
however, I think psychologists might not be a fan of giving them access to that material. I think the reason is because they would end up looking fore more and more extreme material and they could end up offending as a result of that
Afaik we're still yet to find out whether viewing AI-generated material makes an individual look for real-life child abuse imagery.
I believe viewing the latter allows many to keep real-life urges under control (might re-check materials on that), but it obviously comes with its own issues. If we can make AI generated child pornography, and if it doesn't make people go look for the "real stuff", we might actually make a very positive impact on child safety.
According to the few studies we have in the nineties and aughts most people who have sexual attractions to kids are aware acting on them can be harmful and will turn to alternative ways to explore them (when they can't be suppressed or redirected.) So yes, now we have victimless ways to produce porn, the objections are to the fetishes themselves, not to resulting violent behavior.
That said people commonly and openly express their distaste for such people, more so than domestic violence offenders who assault their kids, just not sexually. The same general disdain for child-sex-attracted adults does not transfer to action to feed children or protect them from abusive households.
That said, when we've worried about fiction driving people to act it out in reality, historically this has been demonstrated wrong every single time. Women are not driven to scandal and harlot behavior from trashy romance. Teens are not driven to violence from violent movies or video games. We can expect porn featuring childreb is not going to compell someone to seek to actually sex-assault kids.
This is a bad take because it would generate a drive for larger databases to train against. This will not make the problem better.
It would take a lot of shots to make a meaningful change in the database.
It would probably require training on existing data, which by itself is questionable, but I lean to the side that it might be worth it for the cause.
Things to never say before committing a crime:
"Wait, let me sign in with my Google account first."
Same for our political system.
Healthcare should be built for assuming everybody is an idiot, but instead you need a degree in medical codes invoicing
People have been caught making bomb threats using their own phones. Some people are just not bright enough to be able to survive in this world.
It's for people like them that you have to have signs everywhere that say things like, don't stick your hand in the crushy grindy place, this hot water is hot, and don't drink bleach you'll die.
People in general really. Some of the stuff your average person does on the internet and their devices absolutely stumps me, and I'm not even that tech savvy.
Ease of use, plus people anticipate that there will be much more "noise" drowning their activities out in the daily torrent of information. Then back to your point again, people are dumb and forget it's relatively easy to lookout for certain things even with enormous data flow.
They should become a Republican speaker. Then they'll get a TON of support from the Protect The Children crowd!
Why does the title focus on AI? It looks more like advertisement for AI that can produce porn than the fact that a psychiatrist got photos of naked children under their care... Not sure how else can you teach an algorithm to generate naked children.
Just chipping in with a technicical answer - a model can know what thing A is, also be shown a thing B, and compose the two. Otherwise models would never be able to display anything that doesn't exist yet.
In this particular case, there's stock imagery of children online, and there's naked adults online, so a model can combine the two.
This case seems to be AI fear mongering, the dude had actual CP....
Models already cannot display anything that doesn't exist yet, advanced interpolation is still advanced interpolation, taking parts from different things and making a "new" thing doesn't work.
Child's body is fundamentally different from adult's body, how can AI know what it looks like without knowing what it looks like?
I'm sure you can make a model scale down boobs and ass and make hands thinner etc, but in the end you will have adult bodyparts resized, and not child bodyparts, because they're not just "resize and clip".
Your claims backbone is that models don't know the differences between a child's naked body and an adults, yes?
What happens if you ask chat gpt "what are the anatomical differences between human child and adult bodies?"
I'm sure it'll give you an accurate response.
To test DALL·E’s ability to work with novel concepts, the researchers gave it captions that described objects they thought it would not have seen before, such as “an avocado armchair” and “an illustration of a baby daikon radish in a tutu walking a dog.” In both these cases, the AI generated images that combined these concepts in plausible ways.
You genuinely don't think CSAM is used in the training of these AI models..? And then you used a chat model to essentially google the differences in text and not visually?..
Why did you feel the need to jump in and defend stuff like this?
Didnt they then post a link showing that dall-e could combine two different things into something its never seen before?
Did you read the whole comment? Even if the text model describing things is irrelevant the dall-e part is not.
It is irrelevant. Armchairs are not people. Dali does not know what is inside of those objects. Or under their fabrics for instance. Ask Dali to cut open the Avacado armchair.
I'm sorry if I'm not buying your defense of CSAM.
But the Dali use case of “an illustration of a baby daikon radish in a tutu walking a dog" can't possibly be the best example to use here to defend child porn.
I'm sorry if I'm not buying your defense of CSAM.
Thanks for making it clear you're either arguing in bad faith, or that you're incapable of talking about actual issues the moment anyone mentions CSAM.
Im sorry? My defense of CSAM?
What defence of CSAM?
Do you require mental assistance? You appear to be having some kind of aneurism....
The original comment said it's impossible for a model to be able to produce CP if it was never exposed to it.
They were uninformed, so as someone who works with machine learning I informed them. If your argument relies on ignorance it's bad.
Re: text model, someone already addressed this. If you're going to make arguments and assumptions about things I share without reading them, there's no need for me to bother with my time. You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.
Have a good one!
Oh wow a text model built from text written by humans can parrot what text written by humans says...
Now get it to write something original.
Just like all the words you used to compose that sentence already existed and yet you made it yourself, language models can take tokens that they know generally go together and make original sentences. Your argument is that a dictionary exists, therefore authors are lying to everyone by saying that they wrote something.
Hey, just so you know, this guy is a crazy troll. He's clocked 130 comments on his 9 hr old profile, and almost all of them are picking fights and deflecting. Save yourself the trouble. His goto line is "I don't remember that"
Your argument is that a dictionary exists, therefore authors are lying to everyone by saying that they wrote something.
Don't remember saying that authors are lying about anything.
Blocking any/all users of the "it's just art" and the "no kids were actually used so it's not child pornography" crowds.
Christ, the comments just kept getting worse.
I mean for people that are providing a moral defense of this? Yeah, no, fuck them into the sun.
But from a legal perspective, that's kind of the problem isn't it? Because no kids are involved in the actual production of the images, this creates a huge legal question - isn't this constitutionally protected in countries that have Freedom of Expression/Speech?
I mean this is obviously vile and this person is a danger to children... but would this be illegal in the USA and Canada and other countries that have freedoms that make it very difficult to prosecute this kind of speech?
There's also the wrinkle that it's being made of real people. Not just that it's kids in general, but real, actual, specific kids. Most countries have some form of "use of likeness" protections, but that's essentially making this into a copyright dispute, and a pretty grey one at that.
Not sure what laws the states or Canada have, but it's considered child pornography if it's a depiction of CSA, regardless of whether it's an adult acting, or cartoons, or AI. I suspect at least some states in the US have similar laws.
I dont mind loli hentai but thats as far as im ok with the moment it looks real its a problem imo.
That's an extremely limited take on it that I would expect from Sunday rags. "I have made up my mind, and since I decide, I will simply make sure that nobody gets to discuss this."
Thanks, reddit, can you fuck off back there now?
Sorry we're not interested in discussing child pornography as art, because we're not disgusting pedophile apologists.
We aren't making sure no one discusses this, you can have your nuanced discussions about child pornography with other pedophiles and pedo apologists, you won't be having it with us.
This is so tiring. You're just a fascist in disguise. You could belong to either side. The sheer fact that you are so easily flipped out over any topic of conversation makes it impossible to communicate either which way.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
"As a child psychiatrist, Tatum knew the damaging, long-lasting impact sexual exploitation has on the wellbeing of victimized children," said US Attorney Dena J.
The trial evidence cited by the government includes a secretly-made recording of a minor (a cousin) undressing and showering, and other videos of children participating in sex acts.
"Additionally, trial evidence also established that Tatum used AI to digitally alter clothed images of minors making them sexually explicit," prosecutors said.
"Specifically, trial evidence showed that Tatum used a web-based artificial intelligence application to alter images of clothed minors into child pornography."
In prepared remarks [PDF] delivered at a US Senate subcommittee hearing earlier this year, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, "GPT-4 is 82 percent less likely to respond to requests for disallowed content compared to GPT-3.5, and we use a robust combination of human and automated review processes to monitor for misuse.
A recent report from investigative organization Balkan Insight says groups like Thorn have been supporting CSAM detection legislation to make online content scanning compulsory in part because they provide that service.
The original article contains 457 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Would be good if we could use this for porn. It's better than anyone actually being in porn. If AI takes over then less people would be trafficked and in the porn industry
What would help with sex trafficking is legalizing and regulating prostitution and destigmatizing it.
Regulating prostitution?
Because you think it is a normal, thought life style? A girl having a normal education (school, not abused during her youth, abandoned, fled war/guerrilla), eating to her fill would choose this path?!
So, because they had a rough life and choose to sell sex, they shouldn't get workplace protections? Protection of the law?
Bet you think all drugs should be illegal as well.
Or maybe, providing them better opportunities in our societies than selling their bodies to a disgusting guy?!
Bet you think all drugs should be illegal as well.
i don't know what you are smoking right now but it's not helping you for dialog.
Could be that some people actually choose to do the work and if it was regulated and destigmatised, opinions like yours would disappear.
Yep, some hints are videos and stories of people asking the prostitute to clean their house or cook for them, only to be told to get lost...
Why are ppl downvoting you? Like the idea sounds fucked but it's actually reasonable
So, you're okay with people making porn with your image? What about deepfakes of you committing rape? Or participating in CSAM?
People get trafficked for porn, CSAM solutions are being deployed around the world. But yeah I get your point. Either way, both options are fucked in general I guess
It's worse than reddit up in here. At least the psychos calling AI CP "art" would be met with comments that would be upvoted even more, not down voted into the negatives.
Disgusting to know just how many people are sad, disgusting pieces of shit. CSAM is CSAM, virtual or real. The distinction does not matter.
A bit sensationalist there - article states he'd videoed minors in sexual acts. Probably what got him his well deserved prison stint.
Though I must say, the AI part alone should be enough to rule him out of a career around kids!
I missed that paragraph when I skimmed the article. Thanks!
The trial evidence cited by the government includes a secretly-made recording of a minor (a cousin) undressing and showering, and other videos of children participating in sex acts.
Edit: also, I wondered how he got caught, but this was probably how.
I look forward to the inevitable news story about an inmate crushing his skull with an exercise weight.
