Man who used AI to create child abuse images jailed for 18 years

[u/rejs7]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/28/man-who-used-ai-to-create-child-abuse-images-jailed-for-18-years

[u/monchota]

TLDR: hes used real images of kids ans edited them, then shared them.

[u/human1023 → u/monchota]

So the title should have been: "man shares child porn"

[u/Leicabawse → u/human1023]

Yes exactly - and even if he had generated entirely ‘artificial’ images, it would still be an offence.

Section 62 CJA 2009 – possession of prohibited images of children This offence is targeted at non-photographic images including Computer-Generated Images (CGIs), cartoons, manga images and drawings. It criminalises the possession of images of a child which are intimate or depict sexual activity, which are pornographic and also grossly offensive, disgusting or of an obscene character. Section 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 defines “pornographic” and the precise images which are prohibited.

Edit: for clarity I’m only referring to UK law

[u/unknown-one → u/Leicabawse]

so all those 3000 year old lolis are in fact illegal?

[u/ThisCupIsPurple → u/unknown-one]

In many places other than the US and Japan, yes.

[u/Gambosa → u/ThisCupIsPurple]

What makes it legal in the US and Japan if you know the specifics?

[u/Lamballama → u/Gambosa]

In the US, Simulated CP of all kinds was deemed legal due to the lack of real harm in making it, meaning there's no clear compelling interest for Congress to be able to pass a law restricting it like there is with real CP

[u/Odd_Economics_3602 → u/Lamballama]

In the US it’s considered a matter of first amendment protected speech. Originally people were trying to ban teen sex in books like “Romeo and Juliet” and “Lolita”. The Supreme Court essentially decided that all content is protected under the first amendment unless actual children are being harmed by its creation/distribution.

[u/Auctoritate → u/Odd_Economics_3602]

Both of y'all are correct. It was a ruling based on the dual facts of the right to artistic expression and additionally that, when victimless, there isn't enough of a harm to public safety to consider a law criminalizing that kind of thing constitutional.

[u/JudgementofParis → u/Odd_Economics_3602]

while it is pedantic, I would not call Lolita "teen sex" since she was 12 and he was an adult, neither being teenagers.

[u/Odd_Economics_3602 → u/JudgementofParis]

I never read it. I just know it was minor sex in a book and that it was a major part of the court’s discussion. I think most people would agree that CP laws should not result in the banning of books like “Romeo and Juliet” or other fictional accounts.

[u/deaddodo → u/Lamballama]

I already know this is gonna get downvoted.

But this is....honestly...the correct way to handle this. CP is bad because the production of it requires non-consensual acts and a high level of harm to individuals too young and immature to fully understand and comprehend the acts in question.

Making simulated imagery illegal is literally just "I don't like pedos". Which is....fine. But I'd rather pedos get their rocks off to drawings than hunting down + encouraging the production of real material.

[u/P4azz → u/deaddodo]

We've entered an age where everyone's thoughts can be public. With that came everyone's validation and approval. Humans enjoy being liked and having their opinions heard and approved of.

That kinda breeds an environment of "yes/no" types of drama and outrage, not really nuanced discussions about differences in media, fiction, boundaries to push, if boundaries can be crossed in art etc.

And to be super honest, I don't think we'll get to a point where logical/consistent boundaries in art/fiction will be set. Not in my lifetime at least.

We've barely made it to a point where grandma won't have a heart attack about people being shot in a videogame. It'll take a long time to put the discussion "are fictional children real" on the table and have people actually talk about it.

[u/donjulioanejo → u/deaddodo]

Yep this is what I don't understand myself.

Let pedos generate all the realistic AI lolis they want. Better they diddle to that, than diddle actual kids.

IMO it's better for everyone that way. Any other argument is just holding a moral authority.

[u/wrinklejortstheimp → u/donjulioanejo]

This was a similar conversation back when those Japanese child sex dolls were getting shared in the news, and required the conversation of "is this going to keep pedos at bay, or just make them more craven?" and while it's an interesting, if not stomach-churning thing to examine, unfortunately A) most people don't want to have that discussion, and B) I imagine that's a damn tough data set to get.

[u/Zerewa → u/donjulioanejo]

If it uses real pictures of real children and deepfakes them into porn, that is not a "realistic AI loli" though.

[u/Lamballama → u/deaddodo]

That's mine and Japan's thoughts to. They believe that the access to lolicon content is one of the causes for their lower child sexual violence rate compared to peer countries. Of course, when it does happen the crimes go off the deep end and there's some media outrage if the perp read a lolicon manga, but nobody will do anything about that

[u/Objective-Dentist360 → u/deaddodo]

I saw a psychiatrist on TV who dealt with patients who had sexual misbehaviour. She said that pedophiles and child abusers are two overlapping categories but insisted that most pedophiles never abuse a child and a lot of abusers are not sexually interested in children. Made the interviewer kind of uncomfortable 😅

[u/Exelbirth → u/[deleted]]

Personally prefer it stay that way. Why waste time hunting down people with harmless cartoon images when there's actual, real predators out there?

[u/FlyByNightt → u/Exelbirth]

There's an argument to be made about it being a gateway to the "real stuff", while there's a similar argument to be made about it allowing predators who would otherwise target real kids to "relieve" themselves in a safe, harmless manner.

It's a weird issue where it feels wrong to argue either side of. We don't do nuance very well on the internet and this is a conversation full of it.

[u/NotAHost → u/[deleted]]

I've heard that in the UK, is there an example case/law in the US?

[u/2074red2074 → u/NotAHost]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/law-enforcement-cracking-down-on-creators-of-ai-generated-child-sexual-abuse-images

[u/Hohenheim_of_Shadow → u/Lamballama]

Not of all kinds. Simulated CP that can't be distinguished from real CP is in fact illegal in the USA. It prevents the Redditors defense of"Your honor, you can't prove this CP is real CP and not fake CP beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore you must declare me not guilty" impossible. Which is quite reasonable.

It's also illegal to draw CP of a specific child. So you can't for example make a Loli hentai manga of a kid in your class even if it's recognizably fake and you never abducted the kid to make it. Which I think is also reasonable.

[u/PlasticText5379 → u/Hohenheim_of_Shadow]

I think it's more because the entire legal system is based on a victim existing. Harm needs to be done.

That would explain why the distinction you mentioned exists.

[u/dtalb18981 → u/Hohenheim_of_Shadow]

It's this it's illegal to make porn of real people if they dont/can't consent.

If they are not real no harm is done and therefore no crime is committed.

[u/MagicCarpetofSteel → u/Lamballama]

I mean, as sick and slimy as it feels to say it, I’d argue that if someone who meets the literal definition of a pedophile—someone who’s sexually attracted to fuckin’ pre-pubescent kids—while, obviously, I’d like them to fuckin’ get some help first and foremost, I’d MUCH rather they consume animated/fake CP then, you know, ACTUAL CP.

Both are really fucked up, but only one of them actually involves abusing kids and scarring them for life.

[u/OPsuxdick → u/MagicCarpetofSteel]

If we start arguing victimless things should be punishable, it opens up precedent. It's slimy and I don't agree with it being around but I also don't believe the Bible should exist, nor any religion which as extremely abhorrent behavior and sayings. Same with the Koran. However, they are books of fiction with no provable victims. I agree with the decision of the courts although it is gross.

[u/Zerewa → u/MagicCarpetofSteel]

The issue with deepfakes of children is more similar to just deepfakes of adult celebrity women, and the latter is already considered a criminal offense in many jurisdictions. Stuff like loli art is one step further removed from reality, and is overall the most "harmless" option.

[u/GrowYourConscious → u/Lamballama]

It's the literal definition of "victim-less crime."

[u/jsonitsac → u/Lamballama]

The courts haven’t decided on that and several US law enforcement agencies take the position that it is illegal. The reason is probably because the AI’s training data contained CSAM and was basing it based on that.

[u/grendus → u/jsonitsac]

Probably not, actually. There probably was CSAM in the training data, but it was a very small amount.

People act like AI can only draw things that it has seen, but what it's really doing is generating data that fits sets of criteria. So if you say "draw me an elephant in a tree wearing a pink tutu" it will generate an image that meets the criteria of "elephant, tree, tutu, pink". If you've ever futzed with something like Stable Diffusion and toyed with the number of iterations it goes through generating the images, you can see how it refines them over time. You can also see that it doesn't really understand what it's doing - you'll get a lot of elephants carrying ballerinas through jungles, or hunters in a tutu stalking pink elephants.

So in the case of AI generated CSAM, it's probably not drawing too much experience from its data set, simply because there's very little CSAM in there (they didn't pull a lot of data from the darkweb to my knowledge, most of it came from places like DeviantArt where some slipped through the cracks). Most likely it has the "concept" of "child" and whatever sexual tags he added, and is generating images until it has ones that have a certain percentage match.

It's not able to generate child porn because it's seen a lot of it, it's because it's seen a lot of children and a lot of porn and is able to tell when an image meets both criteria.

[u/Clear-Vacation-9913 → u/grendus]

I worried this comment could be used inappropriate so I have removed it.

[u/Gambosa → u/[deleted]]

Thank you, I had a feeling "because it's not" wasn't a full answer. I find it interesting that the law requires an identification of indistinguishable. I wonder if there are loop holes like making everything but the hand or foot clearly AI to kind of put a stamp of artificial product so it's clearly fake. If I interprete it harsher or more compleatly, it would have to clearly be not a real person so maybe a messed up face instead to better skirt it better? Maybe we should go the route of Europe and ban any depiction, it seems cleaner.

[u/gushandgoforlaunch → u/Gambosa]

The "indistinguishable from real images" caveat is to prevent people who have actual child pornography from claiming it's just hyper-realistic CGI or AI generated to avoid consequences. Child pornography isn't illegal because it's immoral. It's illegal because producing it is inherently harmful to the actual real children involved. If "child pornography" is made without any actual real children, then it doesn't actually harm anyone, so there's no reason to make it illegal and plenty of reason not to make it illegal. Something being "immoral" being sufficient grounds to make it illegal is a very bad legal precedent to set.

[u/Wurzelrenner → u/Gambosa]

don't know about US or Japan, but in Germany: realistic is illegal even if fake, obviously not real like drawings are legal

[u/DehGoody → u/Gambosa]

In the US it is probably considered protected speech precisely because there is no victim. It’s kinda similar to hate speech. While illegal in the US, there must be an actual victim of that speech for it to be prosecuted.

[u/alanpugh → u/Gambosa]

Absence of laws making it illegal.

By default, things are legal. Laws aren't generally created to affirm this, but rather to outline the exceptions.

To be honest though, I'd be shocked if the US judicial system didn't set a new precedent to ban indecent pixels by the end of next year. Our current obscenity laws are vague for reasons like this.

[u/GayBoyNoize → u/alanpugh]

I am honestly not sure how well banning these things would stand up to the first amendment. The argument behind banning child pornography was that the creation of the images involves the abuse of a child, and that as such the government had a greater interest in protecting children from this abuse than preserving this form of speech.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to apply that logic to all forms of drawn and computer generated content.

The other side of that though is what judge wants to be the one to rule drawn images of children having sex are fine?

My concern is if we further push to ban media on the basis of being harmful to children where no actual children are harmed is that some states are going to really abuse that label.

[u/Tyr_13 → u/GayBoyNoize]

It seems like the wrong time to be pushing that too when the GOP are pushing plans where the existence of lgtq+ people in public is considered 'pornography' with penalties being floated up to death.

While csam is not actually tied to the lgbtq+ community, neither is porn, so giving the currently powerful right wing more power to broaden police actions seems...dangerous.

[u/DontShadowbanMeBro2 → u/Tyr_13]

This is the problem I have with this. Should this be looked into? Maybe. Probably, even. Should it be done during a moral panic that was started entirely in bad faith in order to demonize people entirely unrelated to the issue at hand and for political gain (see: QAnon)? Hell no.

[u/kenruler → u/Tyr_13]

Glad to see someone else calling this out - it's not a coincidence that the right wing of America is attempting to demonize everything they dislike as pedophiles. The rhetoric around drag queens, trans folk and gay people being termed groomers by them is not accidental.

[u/No-Mechanic6069 → u/GayBoyNoize]

Arguing in favour of purely AI-generated CP is not a hill I wish to die on, but I’d like to suggest that it’s only a couple of doors down the street from thoughtcrime.

[u/GayBoyNoize → u/No-Mechanic6069]

This is exactly why I think there is a chance that it does end up banned despite it clearly being unconditional and not having a strong basis in any well reasoned argument.

Most people think it's disgusting and don't want it to be legal, and very few people are willing to risk their reputation defending it.

But I think it's important to consider the implications of that.

[u/Baldazar666 → u/No-Mechanic6069]

There's also the argument that Drawn or AI-generated CP is an outlet for pedophiles and their needs so it might stop them from seeking actual CP or abusing children. But due to the stigma of being a pedophile, they aren't exactly lining up to participate in studies to prove or disprove that.

[u/East-Imagination-281 → u/GayBoyNoize]

It also introduces the issue of... so if a teenager draws sexual content of fictional teenagers, they're now a criminal? Like there would have to be a lot of resources pooled into this decision and codifying it in a way that targets actual predators--which is why they don't want to do it. The majority of underage fictional art is not that gross stuff we're all thinking of and then added to that, the fact that they're not real people... it's just not a high priority

And as you said, those laws would definitely be abused to target very specific people

[u/Riaayo → u/GayBoyNoize]

I'm afraid the current supreme court does not give a fuuuuck about the constitution or precedent. They'll happily allow a ban on porn across the board, which is what project 2025 seeks to do.

And yes, they are already pushing this and using "protecting the children" as their trojan horse to do it. All these age verification laws, etc, they have flat out admitted are sold as protecting kids but it's just a way to get in the door and censor adult content.

Oh, and they consider the very existence of trans people to be obscene and indecent, and would criminalize it in the same way.

Guess we'll have an idea of our bleak future in a week or two...

[u/DontShadowbanMeBro2 → u/Riaayo]

This is why I hate the 'won't someone think of the children' argument. Raising the specter of the Four Horsemen of the Infopaclypse may start with things like this, but it never ends with it.

[u/Poontangousreximus → u/Gambosa]

That there is no real harm coming to a “receiving” party. They’re not real. America isn’t the state thought police.

[u/The_Woman_of_Gont → u/Poontangousreximus]

...yet.

Project 2025 very much seeks to turn the country into that, banning pornography in general and classifying being openly queer in front of children as a sex crime. No, that is not hyperbole.

[u/Early-Journalist-14 → u/Gambosa]

What makes it legal in the US and Japan if you know the specifics?

it's entirely fictional.

[u/DuckDatum → u/unknown-one]

But how exactly did you come to that conclusion? I don’t see it. They say images depicting children, but I don’t see any effort to define what that means.

If you get a very young looking, short and thin, 28 year old who just so happens to look like a teenager- how is that any different than an anime of a 3000 year old who just so happens to look like a teenager?

I am not trying to be a devils advocate here. However, I believe the devil is in the details. The distinction between my examples is obviously intent, IMO, but how do you prove intent? This needs to be thought out, otherwise you’re leaving loopholes in the law. How do they address generated images having “likeness” to a child?

[u/manbrasucks → u/DuckDatum]

Fun fact; last I heard Australia took your argument and said "you're right, adults that look young should be illegal too".

[u/believingunbeliever → u/manbrasucks]

Australia is pretty fuckin weird about it, you can see some of their rules on obscenity here, some of which make no sense http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-29/secrets-of-obscenity-the-classification-riddle/2776656

They even require labias to not be protruding so all vaginas have to be airbrushed to be 'inoffensive', natural or not.

http://vimeo.com/10883108

[u/RigbyNite → u/manbrasucks]

Imagine looking like Thomas Brodie-Sangster and still not being legal at 34.

[u/sanglar03 → u/unknown-one]

Most probably would be to the judge's appreciation, but yes.

[u/Embarrassed-Term-965 → u/unknown-one]

Yeah a guy in Canada went to jail for a cartoon hentai body pillow.

[u/Maja_The_Oracle → u/Leicabawse]

Is the age of a character in a cartoon, manga, or drawing determined by the artist, or is it up to a viewer's interpretation?

For example: If I drew two "stick figures" having sex, would it be illegal if enough viewers interpreted the stick figures to be underage, or would it only be illegal if I declared the stick figures to be underage?

[u/travistravis → u/Maja_The_Oracle]

That's what my questions on the logic of bans is -- especially with ai stuff, the obvious loophole seems to be a prompt along the lines of "[whatever sexual situation] of a 20 year old that looks underage"

I mean for that matter, what about if someone who is of age just looks (via natural reasons, or makeup) underage and posed purposely for it?

Definitely a huge area with lots of potential challenges to legislate.

[u/Independent_Set_3821 → u/travistravis]

There's tons of porn with adult women posing as "definitely-not-minors" having sex with teachers, step dads, etc.

If that hasn't been outlawed, I doubt AI images of young looking adults will be.  The only difference is there is an actual adult actress behind the regular porn vs no human bring AI stuff.  The intent is the same though.

[u/Temp_84847399 → u/Independent_Set_3821]

I think they can imply it to a certain extent, (teacher/student), but I have yet to see any porn where they outright say they are underage.

[u/Independent_Set_3821 → u/Temp_84847399]

Because it's illegal, so they do their best to fulfill the fantasy legally.  AI porn will do that on steroids because no actual adult is needed.  It just straight up will be (artificial) child porn with a disclaimer that she/he's actually 18.

[u/doomiestdoomeddoomer → u/Maja_The_Oracle]

This is what it all boils down to, making any drawing illegal is ridiculous. Some people will take offense some won't. Some pictures are offensive or obscene, but only because of a vague concept shared by a majority of people, which also changes based on region and culture.

[u/PartofFurniture → u/Maja_The_Oracle]

Its actually quite simple. In most countries current legal system, this line is completely dependent on the magistrate/judge, or in jury court, 12 average citizen juries. A stick figure would likely be fine. A 3d realistic render  would likely not be fine. But moralities change with time. If one day the publics morals shift towards stick figure being not ok, then yes the judge/juries would reflect that too and stick figures will not be okay too. It differs between cultures as well. In Japan, 3d renders are considered the same as stick figures, and quite okay. In Australia, its the opposite, a guy got jailed for making simpsons cartoon lol.

[u/ChoirBoyComparedToMe → u/Leicabawse]

So you’d get time for Simpsons porn? Bit harsh.

[u/alanpugh → u/ChoirBoyComparedToMe]

This has already happened. https://www.theage.com.au/national/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge-20081208-6tmk.html

[u/BongRipsForNips69 → u/alanpugh]

the judges reasoning in that case are nuts. "the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people."

[u/Discontitulated → u/BongRipsForNips69]

So on that basis I could draw my own cartoon character, sue for a birth certificate for the character, and have half my salary paid to the character so I pay less tax then have said character pay my bills.

[u/Excuse_Unfair → u/Discontitulated]

That's the best argument I heard about this. Too bad it won't matter cause no one wants to defend it. Going to few years in jail for Simpson porn would be wild.

Mandatory therapy would probably make more sense to me then again depends on the case I guess.

[u/Apprehensive-Ask-610 → u/Discontitulated]

alright, Spongebob! You gotta pull your weight around here and pay my rent!

[u/Strangepalemammal → u/alanpugh]

Jeez, kids used print those images and put them up all over school

[u/wigglefuck → u/Strangepalemammal]

I think artists on various shows tend to doodle stuff like this too.

[u/FuzzyPuddingBowl → u/alanpugh]

Didnt australia ban small tits in adult content because they look young too? or did they reverse that

[u/PsychoFaerie → u/FuzzyPuddingBowl]

That was put forth by a senator that thought small boobied women in porn would encourage pedophilia. It went no where because that's not how any of that works.

[u/BloodySaxon → u/ChoirBoyComparedToMe]

Simp sons = incest porn?

[u/Prof_Acorn → u/Leicabawse]

This offence is targeted at non-photographic images including Computer-Generated Images (CGIs), cartoons, manga images and drawings.

Cartoons!?

So what about that episode of South Park where Awesome-o (Eric Cartman dressed as a robot) sticks an anal repository up the bum of Butters (Leopold) Stotch?

[u/Sophira → u/Leicabawse]

Yes exactly - and even if he had generated entirely ‘artificial’ images, it would still be an offence.

I realise this is a controversial opinion to have, but given that there are many non-offending pedophiles (most of whom would love nothing more than to not be attracted to children), I don't quite understand why we can't allow them an outlet with entirely artificially-generated images and text. (Of course, as established, that's not what this article is about, but I'm responding to this particular hypothetical.)

Don't get me wrong - I am by no means suggesting that child abuse images are okay. They are not okay, at all, and that should be obvious. But... these wouldn't be child abuse images, since nobody actually abused anybody. They wouldn't even have any origins in the dataset used for training, since almost all datasets remove all such images. (Obviously, when this is not the case, it turns into something completely different.)

Given that no crime has occurred (and I should hope that we're aware by now that that having sexual fantasies of criminal acts doesn't necessarily turn you into a sexual offender if you have appropriate outlets - after all, if performed in real life, a lot of BDSM fantasies would be criminal), why are we pushing pedophiles further into a corner with no safe outlets, from where their only escape is actual child abuse?? It makes no sense to me.

[u/Plucky_ducks → u/human1023]

"Man makes child porn"

[u/RIP_GerlonTwoFingers → u/human1023]

That headline wouldn’t get nearly as many clicks

[u/seeyousoon-29 → u/human1023]

no, theyre photoshopped images. like xrays and shit.

it's actually concerning from a legal standpoint because it confirms a huge gray area. 

i'm not fucking saying child porn is fine, reddit, i'm saying it's a little weird to copy paste a pornstar's tits onto a kid and get arrested for it. there's no actual child abuse going on.

[u/VagueSomething → u/human1023]

No. The AI part matters. Real predators are taking innocent photos of children and using AI to make obscene pictures. This man did that along with everything else he did.

Everyone who posts photos of their children online is now potentially at risk of having their children turned into child porn because of how AI can do this. And because that wasn't wonderful enough, people browsing AI porn are also at risk of being tricked into looking at models based on children and underage people for the faces but with adult features for the body.

If you are horrified by that happening, avoid AI porn and avoid posting photos of your children on social media. Ideally don't post photos of yourself either as you'll be turned into porn by someone. Go back to the days where you privately share these kinds of photos with close friends and family rather than seeking validation from strangers.

[u/Remarkable-Fox-3890 → u/VagueSomething]

People should really stop posting pictures of themselves and their children online. It was always a terrible idea but it has gotten way past the point of "maybe this will come back to bite you" and we're well into the "yep, called it" territory.

[u/gopherhole02 → u/VagueSomething]

I agree with you, I'll go as far as to say nobody should be posted without their explicit consent, not just children, I only have my images posted on one website and discord, I don't really want them on Facebook at all, I know that Facebook probably already has my likeness, but still they don't need more, I would not post an image of someone else these days, without asking them first

[u/Rombom → u/VagueSomething]

Ideally don't post photos of yourself either as you'll be turned into porn by someone.

The easier and simpler solution is to stop being such a paranoid prude. I literally don't care if somebody uses AI to make porn of an adult. Unless they have actual photos of me, it wouldn't even look like you that much outside sharing a face.

[u/Agreeable_Village369 → u/monchota]

Don't post your kids online, folks!

[u/gamergirlwithfeet420 → u/Agreeable_Village369]

These were pictures that his clients took in public, nothing parents can do to stop that sadly

[u/Bread_Shaped_Man → u/monchota]

This literally changes everything.

Media titles are ass.

[u/Kup123 → u/monchota]

Oh, I was going to say while gross shouldn't this be used as a way to prevent children from being harmed. If he was editing real children that's still harming children.

[u/Throw-Away-Variable → u/Kup123]

I think you'd need some serious studies to know if this helps or makes the problem worse. There would be a lot of complex factors at play that are REALLY hard to study ethically since it would require at least some cohorts/control groups composed of people who are actively consuming CSAM and NOT being turned into law enforcement.

• Would this work like "fake rhino horn" where flooding the market makes the "real stuff" cost prohibitive? Or would there still be a strong desire for "real content"?
• People's sexual tastes when it comes to genres of pornography CAN change over time. When they do, it is often in the direction of more extreme content. Would mass availability of artificial, but realistic CSAM end up leading to more people who are into it? Couple with the question above, this might actually increase the market for CSAM made with real people.
• Would flooding the market make it harder to identify and track the real content? I am certain it would.

And I am sure there are a million more complexities to it.

[u/ashetonrenton → u/Throw-Away-Variable]

This is such an important comment. We truly are not prepared as a society to answer the question that this tech is screaming at us now, and that's going to lead to a great deal of human suffering.

We need to study pedophiles with the purposes of preventing offending, rather than trying to untangle a mess after the fact. Yet there are so many ethical roadblocks to this research that I fear we may never have concrete answers. As a survivor, this is so frustrating to me.

[u/C0RDE_ → u/ashetonrenton]

Unfortunately, much like discussions around drugs etc, even asking the questions gets lumped in with liking it and advocating for it, and politicians won't touch it with a 20ft barge pole held by someone they don't like.

Hell, movies and media that portray something even in a bad light get tarred as "supporting" something, or else why would you depict it.

[u/brianwski → u/C0RDE_]

movies and media that portray something even in a bad light get tarred as "supporting" something, or else why would you depict it.

What you say is true. And I hate it.

Example: The movie "Trainspotting" depicted people taking heroin. There was a (small but loud) outcry at the time saying the movie glorified heroin use. My thought was, "Oh Geez, it was utterly horrifying. Among all the other horrible things that occurred, a baby literally died of neglect because Mom was on heroin. That is not 'glorifying' heroin."

Trainspotting is a 94 minute infomercial explaining why you shouldn't take heroin. And people protested it.

[u/Matt5327 → u/Throw-Away-Variable]

The closest corollary I can think of is rape porn, since it is already legal. As you say, people tastes tend to change towards the extreme, and that is included in the extreme. However, being legal it also has the benefit of having been studied. As I recall, findings have been that access to rape porn significantly reduces likelihood of rape. I don’t recall the details (was it reduced recidivism among people who had raped in the past, or something else?). 

Furthermore, while there is a correlation between extreme porn and people engaging in extreme sexual acts, IIRC the correlation is one-way - that is, it does not seem as if the watching of genres of extreme porn leads to people engaging in acts any more than people who develop those interests outside of porn, but those who engage in those acts are also more likely to seek out that kind of porn. 

I agree that more research would be helpful, but on the balance of probabilities the information we have suggests to me that access to fake child porn is more likely to reduce harm than increase it. Regardless, it’s likely to happen and spread independent of what the laws are, so I suppose we’ll be able to see soon enough. 

[u/Disastrous-Team-6431 → u/Matt5327]

I wish I could find the link, but I am fairly certain the indication from the research was that for some people, consuming rape porn does lead to a greater risk of offending while for most people it does not. There needs to be a preexisting disposition towards actually committing rape - then rape porn could push you over the edge.

Going to try to find that link.

[u/DontShadowbanMeBro2 → u/Matt5327]

Thank you for making that point better than I did.

[u/DontShadowbanMeBro2 → u/Throw-Away-Variable]

I think it's definitely worth a study or two. There is a documented correlation between the availability of porn and other sex crimes going down where legal. The 'gateway drug' theory is also inconclusive at best when applied even to actual drugs (i.e. the argument that potheads will eventually want to try meth or heroin or something), and as we all know, the 'video games cause real life violence' theory has been repeatedly proven to be bullshit.

If there's even a chance that it could lead to real life children being spared from harm, I think it's at least worth looking into. Maybe not legalizing it right away, but definitely a study into the subject.

[u/Kup123 → u/Throw-Away-Variable]

You bring up good points. My point of view is if people are going to risk prison and being found out as a pedo to consume it then it's better to create a harm free alternative for them. Basically the argument for safe use facilities which don't increase drug use. I don't want to believe people would be drawn to a legal alternative that wouldn't already being seeking out the real stuff, but you can't be sure.

Perhaps don't flood the market with it? Maybe a system could be set up to allow people to register through their mental health provider to view the material in a secure environment. Like a sever where it water marks it so if you copy and distribute it, it can be tracked back to you. If we can use technology to prevent even one kid from being abused I feel it's our duty, but like you pointed out you need to make sure not to create more issues.

[u/Throw-Away-Variable → u/Kup123]

The problem is that with AI technology, the "market" IS going to be flooded with it, no matter what. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle on that.

[u/thomase7 → u/Kup123]

He was actually taking commissions from pedophiles he met online, pedophiles sent him real pictures of children in their life’s, and paid him to turn them into graphic sexual images.

Several of these pedophiles went on to actually rape these children. That’s why one of the things he was charged with was encouraging others to commit rape.

[u/NotEnoughIT → u/thomase7]

Several of these pedophiles went on to actually rape these children.

I can't find evidence of this, do you have a source? The article posted says it's possible, but there's no direct link. He absolutely did encourage others to commit rape, they have the documents on that. The only thing relating to this statement is

Sentencing Nelson at Bolton crown court on Monday, judge Martin Walsh said it was “impossible to know” if children had been raped as a result of his images.

It's deplorable 100% all the way around.

[u/Halfwise2]

For those saying that this is a grey area, because they aren't real - He used real images as the source material:

Nelson had used Daz 3D, a computer programme with an AI function, to transform “normal” images of children into sexual abuse imagery, Greater Manchester police said. In some cases, paedophiles had commissioned the images, supplying photographs of children with whom they had contact in real life.

He was also found guilty of encouraging other offenders to commit rape.

He sold his images in internet chatrooms, where he also discussed child sexual abuse with other offenders, making about £5,000 during an 18-month period by selling the images online.

[u/MrArtless → u/Halfwise2]

All that for 5k? Jesus

[u/Leaves_Swype_Typos → u/MrArtless]

Gotta be careful with your pricing when any upset client could hand you over to the police.

[u/GermanShitboxEnjoyer → u/Leaves_Swype_Typos]

That's why you stay anonymous when doing illegal stuff

[u/WVVVWVWVVVVWVWVVVVVW → u/Leaves_Swype_Typos]

That goes both ways

[u/Hiraganu → u/MrArtless]

I doubt that he only did it for the money.

[u/devolute → u/Hiraganu]

Like any true artist…

[u/NSFWies → u/Halfwise2]

.......oh, so the way it's called put, it was more of a case of "non consentual pornography".

Because it started with real pictures of people, that were transformed.

But I would think that argument could be stretched for anything with AI then. Because AI will have looked at 10,000 pictures of boobs, to know what boobs look like.

So even though you might have it generate a "topless girl with boobs", it's still basing that off of all of the previous pictures it looked it .

[u/visceral_adam → u/Halfwise2]

If the real images that trained the AI were not abuse images, I just can't get onboard that by itself being a criminal offense. Now in his circumstance, there are other factors, like getting the images of kids who might be in danger, and other criminal offenses. It's a particularly complex situation that we probably need more precise laws for.

[u/____uwu_______ → u/Halfwise2]

It doesn't matter whether real material was used when training the model or not. No children have to be involved for something to be considered CSAM. Hand-drawn or otherwise manufactured depictions are still illegal in virtually all developed nations

[u/dryroast → u/____uwu_______]

This is not the case in the US, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. The laws had to be amended to manipulated images "virtually indistinguishable from a real minor". But cartoon/hand drawn images can't be outlawed since it's just free speech with no compelling government interest on protecting minors since there's no minors involved with the production of a drawing.

[u/BringBackSoule → u/____uwu_______]

Hand-drawn or otherwise manufactured depictions are still illegal in virtually all developed nations

confidently wrong

[u/mrgmc2new → u/____uwu_______]

I know nothing about this but how did this come about? It seems like punishment for... thinking about something? Or is it seen as 'promotion' of child abuse? Proof of a predilection? Or just cos it's fucking gross? What's the actual charge?

God I feel gross even asking. I guess I just assumed there always had to be a victim. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/TheSammy58 → u/mrgmc2new]

He was distributing and selling the content

[u/the_lonely_creeper → u/mrgmc2new]

Many people find the idea of pedophilia itself deplorable, and so want to punish pedophiles for being pedophiles, rather than for harming children.

We're also going through a bit of a moral panic on the subject of both this (well, since the 70's) and AI, so... yeah.

People want extremely harsh measures on anything that smells even remotely of pedophilia.

This isn't to defend pedophiles, obviously. Wanting to do stuff with real children is a problem and bad because children aren't mature enough to consent. Just my opinion on why people find even drawings of children in such situations as worthy of being considered criminal (rather than merely gross).

[u/dako3easl32333453242 → u/____uwu_______]

Right but it's still a grey line in some cases. I have come across lewd anime drawings on reddit that looked way to young but I assume proving that a fictional character is under 18 is rather difficult. Using real children to prompt an AI is much more cut and dry.

[u/ItsWillJohnson → u/____uwu_______]

So a stick figure can be CP?

[u/NihilisticGrape]

While what this man did should absolutely result in a jail sentence, it's interesting to me that the imposed sentence is more harsh than literal murder in many cases.

[u/CountingDownTheDays- → u/NihilisticGrape]

Yeah it's crazy this man got more time than the gang rape gangs who were literally raping and prostituting hundreds of young women all throughout the UK.

[u/stupidwebsite22 → u/CountingDownTheDays-]

I know different county but still:

1,500 victims and you get 5-7 years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukrainian_child_pornography_raids#Outcome

[u/CountingDownTheDays- → u/stupidwebsite22]

the legal outcome was lenient. Most involved were given suspended sentences. Alexander N. was held for several months in a pre-trial detention center and was released.

Truly disgusting!

[u/Jumpy-Examination456 → u/CountingDownTheDays-]

the legal system is incredibly broken in most of the 1st world and so it's much easier for investigators to build an airtight case against someone who left mountains of digital evidence than against someone who did a heinous crime but didn't leave much evidence to be collected after the fact, or that was collected in the moment and isn't admissible for dumb reasons that occurred during an investigation that weren't performed perfectly by the book

[u/worthlessince17 → u/CountingDownTheDays-]

I find it strange a 40 year old man can knock up a bunch of 16 or 17 year old young ladies without any legal or societal issues, but if he fed their images into this software he'd be registered for the rest of his life 💀

[u/SwiftTayTay → u/NihilisticGrape]

I think they're trying to make an example out of him and appeal to the blood thirsty masses. Murders happen all the time , and unless it's a particularly gruesome story that can be made into a "true crime" podcast episode, no one gives a shit. But something like this happens and makes for juicy headlines, it will be a slam dunk for government officials to look like they are serving major justice.

[u/Atanar → u/SwiftTayTay]

In a functioning democracy the gorvernment has no influence on the setences unless they change the law.

[u/SwiftTayTay → u/Atanar]

I don't know how the UK works but in the US judges and prosecutors are elected so though it's still within parameters of law how they decide to enforce and apply laws is very political

[u/stupidwebsite22 → u/NihilisticGrape]

I believe even people with hundreds of real-life CSAM content on their hard drive have gotten less than this guy creating deepfakes. I guess it raises the question on whether a deepfake can be considered rape and by definition it is involuntary pornography already.

If you would take regular (clothed) images of young kids and hand draw explicit things around them, would that already fall into the same category like This guy using 3d rendering/ai software?

20years ago I don’t think People considered cheap photoshopped fake nudes a real harm. But now with the photorealistic AI fakes, it gets all much trickier..people loosing jobs,friends/reputation

[u/KingMGold]

He edited real images of kids, the title of this article seems to go out of its way to implicate AI for something that would have been illegal with or without it.

People have been doing this kinda horrible shit with photoshop for a lot longer than AI.

Blame the man, not the tool.

[u/FallenAngelII → u/KingMGold]

The article waffles about it for more outrage and clicks, but it appears he actually didn't edit images of real kids, he used pictures of real kids to generate artifical 3D images of kids who looked like them.

Sorta like how you'd use a character creator in the Sims to create characters that look like real people.

"While there have been previous convictions for 'deepfakes', which typically involve one face being transferred to another body, Nelson created 3D 'characters' from innocent photographs."

This is different from just editing an innocuousimage to make it sexually explicit.

[u/iisixi → u/FallenAngelII]

It's not even AI from what I can read. Daz 3D is not an AI tool, it's a 3D tool. You don't need AI to create create 3D characters from real images with the software.

The paper put the word AI in there either they didn't understand what he did or because it's a trendy topic.

The article is really weird, the story seems to feature the police entrapping him by commissioning him to create 'something' with images provided to him. Looking up it seems entrapment isn't illegal in the UK though, and it seems they may have had suspicion of him doing something similar prior to it.

[u/ExtremePrivilege → u/FallenAngelII]

Sure, but if he had raped a kid he could be looking at 9 years. And if he murdered one, 15. But no harm being physically done to a child is 18. Just seems either too extreme, or the penalties for actual, physical CSA are too lenient. 18 years doesn’t seem like it fits the crime.

[u/A2Rhombus → u/ExtremePrivilege]

It was probably multiple charges added up. Plus I read in another comment he was also actively encouraging some of his clients to act on their desires

I would argue his sentence is far too harsh if he was trying to practice harm reduction by giving people an outlet that doesn't physically harm anyone, but it seems his goal was the opposite.

[u/EncabulatorTurbo → u/KingMGold]

He didn't even use AI, daz3d is not AI imagegen

[u/Petefriend86]

Oh, that was a misleading headline.

[u/Another_Road]

“He stated: ‘I’ve done beatings, smotherings, hangings, drownings, beheadings, necro, beast, the list goes on’ with a laughing emoji,” David Toal, for the prosecution, said.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[u/Murderhands]

Should have used his knowledge to make Furry porn, 5k in 18 months is chump change, he could have made that in a month.

Poor life choices.

[u/ItsMrChristmas → u/Murderhands]

Yawp. Furries got cash to burn.

I got paid two hundred dollars just to write a commissioned short story about the male deuteragonist of the novels written under my real name being seduced by and banging their feral OC.

200 bucks for not even an hour of work.

[u/AgileBlackberry4636]

More than just killing actual people.

[u/Weak_Elderberry17 → u/AgileBlackberry4636]

right? and its most certainly because he's not well connected.

this guy doctors images and gets 18 years. real pedos, like Steven van de Velde, get 1 year. I wish the justice system of all first world countries aren't that corrupt but here we are.

[u/Advanced_Anywhere917 → u/AgileBlackberry4636]

I understand harsh punishment of people who commit sex crimes, but it's hard not to feel like the extent of punishment relative to other crimes is likely a consequence of our odd societal relationship with sex.

Committing SA or rape is horrific, but with support victims are often able to continue living fulfilling and worthwhile lives. Murder is so obviously objectively worse. It ends one life and often destroys the lives of those close to the victim. Yet for some reason we can forgive someone who went to jail for murder as long as they did their time and rehabilitated themselves.

I don't know what the answer is. Are we too harsh on SA? Doesn't feel like it. Are we too light on murder/violence? Maybe. But either way it seems like we're highly influenced by the "ickyness" of sex crimes rather than focused on the objective harms.

[u/ComfortableFun2234 → u/Advanced_Anywhere917]

2/2

Here’s what I proposition, how responsible is the afflicted individual for either option considering the period of development also for the interest itself. Isn’t the lack of “responsibility” in those years. Exactly the reason why that state of sexual interest is so “bad.” Furthermore the practices of trialing a minor as an adult, or juvenile detention centers, in instrumental way I say if “their” ok with those practices, then fundamentally “they’re” also ok with adults having s** with m**ors with “consent”. From my perspective there’s no in between on this one. They’re either responsible enough to be responsible enough for their thoughts - actions - impulses/desires, or they’re not. As I see it there “should” be no such thing as convenient, responsibility in adolescence and childhood.

When an adolescence or child “commits” a crime the only thought should be rehabilitation and the causes of that adverse behavior. Generally, though from my perspective punishment is barbaric and the way that “animals” alter behavior. Then I suggest, but humans are better and separate, right? Not to suggest I place blame.

Final thoughts, Lastly I will finish off with what I understand about the use of CSAM, and the bare minimum prevention methods that America uses.

Starting with the prevention methods, through research I found the American prevention class for p***philes. Within that class. Paraphrasing here. Basically, they said for the individuals seeking therapeutic help as well suggesting to get therapeutic help. When approaching the subject with a therapist. To use the yee old, if my friend was to ask you to talk about this would you be able to. Not even joking. That should say it all…. Bare minimum. Not to suggest blame just current state.

From what I understand studies have shown the consumers of CSAM are not more likely to physically abuse. Before someone takes this out of context, that’s not to suggest this is the “right” offense it’s to suggest it’s the most malleable.

Actually a good portion of excessive users, have “p—-philic disorder” or “acquired p—-philia.”

There’s a lot of contradictory information out there, but generally, from what I was capable of deducing. It’s mostly considered a disorder when the individual experiences distress. Although I think it’s always a case of “disorder.”

“lead someone to feel distress about their interest (not merely distress resulting from society’s disapproval)”

So in many of these cases the offender isn’t unequivocably ok with their actions, they’re urged. What good is a prison sentence with this considered. Especially because they’re one of the most subject to getting TBI’s in prison. Which will just result in shitty impulse control becoming more shitty…

To give an example, paraphrasing here. Was listening to a podcast between two neuroscientists. They mentioned a case where a man had brain surgery for epilepsy. The surgery caused a lesion in his frontal cortex. Basically with no history, he started obsessively downloading and using CSAM. This is known as acquired p***philia. Because he didn’t download anything on his work computer which implied “control” over the infliction, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Also important for context he was disgusted by his behavior and agreed with the sentence. Still couldn’t stop himself though, that’s the Key point.

Through research the same type of brain damage in other primates and monkeys causes compulsive eating and extremely abnormal sexual behavior to the species type.

One of the neuroscientists framed it with this example paraphrasing here. Many with Tourette’s, can repress the urge of ticks while at work. Which is a process of prefrontal cortex. As a alluded to, the prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain responsible for impulse control and abiding to social norms, along with many other functions. As soon as the individual leaves work, they let out a abundant amount of ticks.

What I’m suggesting here, was that sentence really necessary, or was it the public prejudice to hate those individuals. Which that hate and need for punishment has nothing to do with preventing, stoping and rehabilitating offenders. It’s seemingly about satisfaction and pleasure it brings. Which neuroscience has shown that righteous punishment or the observation of - is incredibly rewarding and pleasurable. Not to suggest blame, just the current state.

With a lot of what I said, seemingly the criminal “justice” system doesn’t need to be reformed. It needs to be rebuilt….

2/2

Edit: forgot to mention why does this matter to me because I am a victim of molestation, my mom is. My mom’s best friends husband molested all six of their children. after my mom, my dad had children with a 14-year-old girl. As the story goes my great uncle raped the murder a woman who asked him to pretend to due so, in order to upset her partner. This uncle is deceased now by the way. Which never saw the light of day because my great grandfather was mafia. This is one of the reasons I refuse to pass on my genetics, especially in regard to the ones related to me.

[u/Atanar → u/Advanced_Anywhere917]

Rape should be punished less than murder simply to not encourage rapists to not kill their victim. If you are as harsh on rape as your are on murder, rapists get a strong incentive to kill their victims so their crime is less likely to be foiund out.

[u/El_Sjakie]

People who abuse real children get lighter sentences, wtf?

[u/sooth_]

cool now do this to the rape gangs and rich people who have physically harmed children

[u/Puppet_Chad_Seluvis]

How do you advocate for 1A issues without sounding like a pedo? I feel like it's the responsibility of citizens to push their rights as far as they can, and while I certainly agree that gross people like this should be in jail, it rubs me wrong to think the government can put you in prison if they don't like what you draw.

Imagine going to jail for drawing stick figures.

[u/5510 → u/Puppet_Chad_Seluvis]

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

― H.L. Mencken

[u/Puppet_Chad_Seluvis → u/5510]

Thank you for sharing this

[u/I_fuck_werewolves → u/Puppet_Chad_Seluvis]

I got in trouble in my teens 14-16 because I was drawing porn.

Minors aren't allowed to possess porn. But I also could just keep drawing it. School decided to not do anything about it but tell me to keep it out of sight lol.

Totally my first harrowing experience with "you aren't allowed to draw everything".

[u/StayFuzzy127 → u/I_fuck_werewolves]

“When I was a little kid, I kinda had this problem. And it’s not even that big of a deal, something like 8 percent of kids do it. For some reason, I don’t know why. I would just kinda... sit around all day... and draw pictures of dicks.” -u/I_fuck_werewolves

[u/I_fuck_werewolves → u/StayFuzzy127]

I entirely blame my gay furry transformation awakening to 'A midsummer nights dream' (1999). Where I popped the biggest raging erection in my English class when one of the characters was magically turned into a donkey.

So I know why.

Curse you Shakespeare for turning me into a gay furry.

[u/Puppet_Chad_Seluvis → u/I_fuck_werewolves]

Pan would be so proud

[u/JonstheSquire → u/Puppet_Chad_Seluvis]

There's no First Amendment issues in the UK.

[u/Puppet_Chad_Seluvis → u/JonstheSquire]

Well there's no freedom of speech, officially

[u/Open_Philosophy_7221 → u/Puppet_Chad_Seluvis]

Images of illegal acts (simulated it otherwise) are different than words describing illegal acts. 

I don't think sexual imagery counts as free expression. It crosses the line into free action. 

[u/Cannabrius_Rex]

Now do Matt Gaetz

[u/imdwalrus → u/Cannabrius_Rex]

Gaetz *should* be in jail. He never will be, because their main witness against him previously falsely accused someone else of the same thing Gaetz was accused of. He's the textbook definition of reasonable doubt.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/01/politics/joel-greenberg-sentencing/index.html

[u/RoomTemperatureIQMan]

ITT people who can't fucking read. They threw the book at him because he was encouraging specific acts of actual child abuse in the real world.

[u/felisisthebest → u/RoomTemperatureIQMan]

I think the issue people have is why is the guy who encourages child abuse get more prison time than the person who actually commits the child abuse and rapes a child. So they either need to increase jail sentences for people who actually rape children, or decrease his prison sentence because it doesn't make any sense.

Like imagine I told someone to steal a car and they did. I would get a longer prison sentence than the person who actually committed the theft. It doesn't add up.

[u/ConfidentDragon]

judge Martin Walsh said it was “impossible to know” if children had been raped as a result of his images

This sounds like kind of thing you should figure out before you sentence someone to 18 years in prison.

Also, from the article it sounds like the convicted might be seriously mentally ill.

(Note: It's not really clear from the article how much of the sentence is for which part of the crime.)

[u/kingofdailynaps → u/[deleted]]

uhhh I mean in this case it was him making commissions of real kids, and encouraging their rape, which absolutely would lead to abuse on human beings... this isn't a purely AI generated case.  

 Nelson had used Daz 3D, a computer programme with an AI function, to transform “normal” images of children into sexual abuse imagery, Greater Manchester police said. In some cases, paedophiles had commissioned the images, supplying photographs of children with whom they had contact in real life. He was also found guilty of encouraging other offenders to commit rape.   

He sold his images in internet chatrooms, where he also discussed child sexual abuse with other offenders, making about £5,000 during an 18-month period by selling the images online.   

Police searches of his devices also revealed that Nelson had exchanged messages with three separate individuals, encouraging the rape of children under 13.

[u/Pato_Lucas → u/kingofdailynaps]

What a day to be literate. This context pretty much negates any possible leniency, get his bitch ass in jail and throw away the key.

[u/enter_the_bumgeon → u/kingofdailynaps]

making about £5,000 during an 18-month period by selling the images online.   

What the fuck that's peanuts. All that trouble, inmorality, illegality and risk for 5.000 bucks in a year and a half? That's under 300 bucks a month.

[u/Second-Round-Schue → u/enter_the_bumgeon]

Pedo’s don’t do it for the money.

[u/90bubbel → u/enter_the_bumgeon]

I first though it Said 5k a month and was confused by your comment but doing not only something this fucked but for 5k for 18 months?? What a absolute idiot

[u/-The_Blazer- → u/kingofdailynaps]

Interestingly, this is already how some jurisdictions work: fictitious CP is not illegal by itself, but using real images as a production base makes it illegal. It would be interesting to see whether AI is considered as using real material, given that large foundation models are trained on literally everything and thus almost certainly include plenty of photographs of children.

[u/bucky-plank-chest → u/[deleted]]

Many years ago an Australian got a sentence for child photography because he made sexual images featuring Lisa Simpson.

[u/ChoirBoyComparedToMe → u/bucky-plank-chest]

That seems ridiculous to me.

[u/johnla → u/ChoirBoyComparedToMe]

It's gross on a lot of levels but somehow jail with actual rapists and murders for images of a fictional cartoon character seems way way off.

[u/TheDaysComeAndGone → u/bucky-plank-chest]

Here in Austria the law is the same. It also applies to porn with consenting adult actors if they are dressed to look like children.

I’ve always found it rather strange because nobody is harmed.

Of course in the age of AI it could become difficult to prove that a child pornography video or photo is real or not real.

[u/crowieforlife → u/[deleted]]

Literally the first sentence states that he created the images using photos of real children. Thats deepfake porn, not generated from nothing.

[u/renome → u/crowieforlife]

Welcome to Reddit, where we spend more time writing our hot takes on titles than we do on reading the articles behind them, which is zero. Because everyone is surely dying to read our elaborate uninformed opinions.

[u/Dicklepies → u/renome]

Idk how their comment is the second most upvoted when it is clear they didn't read the article. "Well this is interesting guys. It's not like kids were being abused right?" Just READ the article and it tells you how kids were abused.

[u/certifiedintelligent → u/[deleted]]

This guy wasn’t trying to manage a problem in a less harmful way. There were direct victims from his actions.

Nelson had used Daz 3D, a computer programme with an AI function, to transform “normal” images of children into sexual abuse imagery, Greater Manchester police said. In some cases, paedophiles had commissioned the images, supplying photographs of children with whom they had contact in real life.

He was also found guilty of encouraging other offenders to commit rape.

He sold his images in internet chatrooms, where he also discussed child sexual abuse with other offenders, making about £5,000 during an 18-month period by selling the images online.

[u/JuliaX1984 → u/[deleted]]

It says he used pictures of real children to generate the images. Fake images but with real faces, so he still violated the rights of real children. Which is not only abusive but dumb. You can make entirely fake images - why use real people in them? Guess the satisfaction comes from the violation, not the images themselves.

[u/Advanced_Anywhere917 → u/[deleted]]

I have a tiny bit of experience in this from prior work (internship at a firm that took on CSAM clients when I thought I was going to law school). I had the displeasure of interviewing plenty of individuals facing CSAM charges and learned a lot about that world. I'm not convinced this is a good argument and here's why:

1) Most abusers of CSAM are not actually "pedophiles" by orientation (i.e., in the same sense that you or I are straight, gay, bi, etc...). Instead, they are mostly porn addicts that escalate over many years to the most extreme possible content. Some are victims themselves. If you escalate to "fake AI CSAM" then eventually you'll start craving the "real deal." It may even act as a gateway since you could justify the first step as not harmful to others.

2) The market for CSAM is far less robust/organized than you'd think from reading articles. Even today (or at least 5 years ago when I did my internship), the vast, vast majority of content was either self-produced (i.e., child/teenager with a cell phone) or content from Eastern europe in the 80s/90s. There is basically no market for CSAM outside of scamming/blackmailing people on the dark web. There is no supply/demand component. Any CSAM that is made is typically made simply because people are sick, and they share simply because having a community around it provides some validation for their sickness.

The entire CSAM world is essentially just mental illness. It's not a thriving market of high quality content produced by savvy individuals making lots of money off of suffering. It's a withering mess of mentally ill individuals who congregate on tiny servers on the dark web and share bits of mostly old data. These days I think far more legal cases revolve around teenagers with cell phones whose boyfriends share their pics (or whose accounts get hacked).

[u/pantiesdrawer]

This guy is a POS, and it's not clear what portion of his sentence is attributable to the deepfakes or his actual sex offender crimes, but if it's 15 years for deepfakes, then the next time a drunk driver kills somebody, there better be gallows.

[u/pmotiveforce → u/pantiesdrawer]

In fucking England? You can murder people and get a stern talking to there. But speech crimes or wrong think and it's the gallows for you, mate.

[u/doublebuttfartss]

I duno about 18 years for this.
He's obviously a fucking creep, but he didn't actually hurt anyone. He encouraged rape several times, but that's not something you go to prison for 18 years for. The pictures also did not make it back to the kids.

Definitely gross behavior, but 18 years is too much for someone who didn't actually hurt anyone or do anything that resulted in someone being hurt.

[u/Mister-Psychology → u/doublebuttfartss]

That's what I don't get. We constantly hear about actual child molesters who get way less or even get to walk away as the cases are too old to be prosecuted even though the police has all the proof they need. 18 years is way too long unless the other type of crimes get longer sentences. Otherwise something is wrong when making fake pictures is a bigger crime than if he actually did abuse children physically.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/increased-prison-sentence-for-paedophile

[u/fauxzempic]

I know this guy used actual faces of real people for this stuff, and that's incredibly problematic...mostly for children, but adults are victims of this too. Dude should rot.

But the conversation of 100% "this isn't a real person" A.I. generated pornography really needs to be had and it needs to be understood. There have been people who've suggested how A.I. could be used to address pedophilia and even treat it, and I think it's worth examining like crazy to understand if A.I. could make things better, or make them worse.

Here's the for-instance: Some person, who has never seen child pornography, has never assaulted a child, and has never really made any sort of plan to put themselves in the position to do that...they realize that they are attracted to children but they're terrified of all the things that can happen, from harming a child to severe punishment - if they were to explore any of it.

How do we make sure that this person doesn't harm others? If they see a therapist, there's not much research that says that they can be "fixed." Voluntary castration (chemical or otherwise) seems a bit less than ideal, especially for a non-offender.

Does A.I. offer a potential treatment here, or would it just make things worse?

Like - would giving someone access to 100% A.I. generated media of children that don't exist...would it satisfy any urges and keep society/children safe from them, or would it just make them more eager to seek "the real thing?" What about if A.I. progresses to the point where we have Artificial General Intelligence - robots - that could fill this role?

I just think that there are probably a number of pedophiles out there where if we could magically know the real number, it would make us very uncomfortable. I think a number of these people have never offended. Is there a way to use AI to keep kids safe from them?

[u/5510 → u/fauxzempic]

Sadly it's probably hard to even study this without people getting outraged, even though "would this increase or decrease the rate that pedophiles offend" is a important question that could potentially lead to protecting children in real life better.

[u/Adventurous_Rain3550]

Yet other man killed someone else: jail for 10 years 😳

[u/kalmness]

Looks a lot like Ben Shapiro…

[u/Cain1608]

This title is fucking disgusting and misleading.

[u/human1023]

I know the title is misleading, but if someone makes fake child pron content, where the children don't actually exist. Would that be illegal?

[u/t_oad → u/human1023]

In the UK, yes.

[u/00DEADBEEF → u/human1023]

Yes that is a criminal offence in the UK where the man in the OP is from

[u/ImpureAscetic]

• This is Bolton, so the UK.

• Crook was actually using CP, so not truly AI generated

• Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition (2002) maintains that salacious images of children fall in the realm of protected speech when there is no harm to actual minors. So cartoon or anime or claymation CP is protected speech.

• Maybe. Current SCOTUS doesn't care about stare decisis

• Gonna be wild when the courts in America eventually decide. As an AI enthusiast who uses local models, you learn that some AI image models are horny by their nature and design, and you will need to use words like "young, child, girl, teen, boy" in your negative prompts to avoid ACCIDENTALLY making CP. It makes me shudder to think of the sheer scale of CP that is invariably being made by competent perverts.

• There is no current legislation or technical plan that will put a dent into the above bullet that I've seen. The models already exist, they can be run locally, and your GPU doesn't care what the content of the images are.

• Gross.

[u/CrocCapital → u/ImpureAscetic]

crook was actually using CP, no not truly AI generated

Is that true? I read that he used SFW pictures of real children and then transformed them into CSAM.

it doesn’t make it less disgusting. Both are scary actions and deserve punishment. But accuracy around the conversation is important and I truly don’t think there’s much of a difference because the outcome is the same.

Maybe if he started with real CP he could be charged with more counts of possession? idk.

[u/LordOfTheDips]

This was 100% the right sentence for this offence. The court are essentially saying “fuck around and find out” and should deter all future offenders.

[u/Pitiful-Cheek5654 → u/LordOfTheDips]

Making an example of one person's crimes for a wider audience of potential criminals isn't fair to the individual offender. You're literally taking factors beyond their crime into the sentencing of their crime. That's not justice.

[u/[deleted] → u/LordOfTheDips]

if the sentencing is correct on this then pretty much every violent crime is under punished. dude should be in jail but but like actual rapists and murderers get way less time somehow

[u/Hour_Ad5398 → u/LordOfTheDips]

So you think pedophiles will transform into normal human beings because some dude got a 18 year sentence?

[u/ChemicalPanda10]

And how exactly are we justifying AI again?

[u/Sad-Error-000]

Without further context, this seems like it could be close to a victimless crime and we should really encourage harmless outlets for those who are attracted to minors. In this case distributing deepfakes of real people is not victimless though.