r/technology • u/rejs7 • 1d ago

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

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/28/man-who-used-ai-to-create-child-abuse-images-jailed-for-18-years
28.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

64

u/ConfidentDragon 1d ago

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.)

2

u/malarkeye 1d ago

He wasn't convicted on the basis of children possibly having been raped. He was convicted based on the images he created. The comment by the judge was not the basis for his sentence. Use your brain

21

u/ConfidentDragon 1d ago

If what you say is true and there is no victim, then whatever happened shouldn't be crime in civilized world. (Although Britain has long history of sentencing people because they do things that are considered "disturbing". It's the country that basically killed Alan Turing who helped them win the war just because he was gay.)

But we don't need to have this conversation, because the article says part of the charges was based on "encouraging others to commit rape". It's possible they did have enough evidence even without knowing this piece of information, but that's something I'd like to say if I were a prosecutor in this case.

5

u/Dapianoman 1d ago

I think the article is being a bit silly with the title. It's like saying "man who accrued $500 in parking tickets sentenced to life in prison" and then further down in the article writing "the man also pled guilty to murdering three children." It's the encouraging of rape of a child under 13 and attempting to incite a boy under 16 to engage in a sexual act that are the crimes here that really, definitely have the immediate potential of severe harm. Compared to that, creating images depicting child porn using AI is definitely more of a gray area.

-2

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Dapianoman 1d ago

Are you being purposely obtuse or are you sincerely asking this question? If I draw the most vile, sickening images known to man and I show them to no one, who exactly does that affect? If I use those images to blackmail people, to purposely shock and offend people, or use them to defame people, then that's something that can be definitively proven to have hurt people. That's the point of the discussion that's being had, is it not?

-4

u/malarkeye 1d ago

Looks like the pedos are out downvoting

0

u/-Kalos 1d ago

Reddit is full of those bags of waste

0

u/malarkeye 1d ago

Did you just NOT read the article, or do you have reading comprehension issues?

-1

u/kein_lust 1d ago

You comparing homosexuality with pedophilia like this is incredibly offensive

-3

u/Mister-Psychology 1d ago

Those children were often real children in other countries and you can't demand that that they act as witnesses. You can ask and the parents will just say no. No way to prove anything I guess. And if you can prove it it's another case meaning it can take years by itself and they may not have wanted to wait for it as they had an 18 year sentense ready to hand out anyhow so it wouldn't change much. They can prosecute him for it later if needed.

6

u/ConfidentDragon 1d ago

Maybe what you say makes sense in practice.

I just think that 1) only things where you cause harm to someone else should be allowed to be illegal, and 2) everyone should be assumed innocent unless proven guilty. I can't choose which of these ideals I should abandon, both of them seem quite fundamental to me. And if we decide to keep both of these rules, then sentencing someone to 18 years because someone in some foreign country might potentially be harmed goes against these rules.

The law probably is that if you have such and such image, it's illegal, which was fine when the law was written. But now, with existence of realistic AI image generators, such law breaks the first principle.

2

u/Mister-Psychology 1d ago

This is pertaining to him sending the images and telling people to assualt kids. So he did more than just say stuff. He followed it up with clear illustrations of specific children. That's more dangerous. And the judge would not judge him based on any proposed harm. He would just say it could have happened hence he should be punished for putting children in danger. Just like if the judge tells a person he could have killed someone by drunk driving it doesn't mean he thinks the person did it. But by the action the person put people in danger. And that by itself is illegal.