OK, so this is just the general anti-AI image generation argument where you believe any image generated is in some meaningful way a copy of every image analyzed to produce the statistical model that eventually generated it?
I’m surprised you’re going the CSAM route with this and not just arguing that any AI generated sexually explicit image of a woman is nonconsensual porn of literally every woman who has ever posted a photo on social media.
was seeded with the face of a 15yr old and that they really are 15 for all intents and purposes.
That’s…not how AI image generation works? AI image generation isn’t just building a collage from random images in a database - the model doesn’t have a database of images within it at all - it just has a bunch of statistical weightings and net configuration that are essentially a statistical model for classifying images, being told to produce whatever inputs maximize an output resembling the prompt, starting from a seed. It’s not “seeded with an image of a 15 year old”, it’s seeded with white noise and basically asked to show how that white noise looks like (in this case) “woman porn miniskirt”, then repeat a few times until the resulting image is stable.
Unless you’re arguing that somewhere in the millions of images tagged “woman” being analyzed to build that statistical model is probably at least one person under 18, and that any image of “woman” generated by such a model is necessarily underage because the weightings were impacted however slightly by that image or images, in which case you could also argue that all drawn images of humans are underage because whoever drew it has probably seen a child at some point and therefore everything they draw is tainted by having been exposed to children ever.
97% of the internet has no idea what Matrix channels even are.
I’ve been able to explain it to people pretty easily as “like Discord, but without Discord administration getting to control what’s allowed, only whoever happens to run that particular server.”
A more apt comparison would be people who go out of their way to hurt animals.
Is it? That person is going out of their way to do actual violence. It feels like arguing someone watching a slasher movie is more likely to make them go commit murder is a much closer analogy to someone watching a cartoon of a child engaged in sexual activity or w/e being more likely to make them molest a real kid.
We could make it a video game about molesting kids and Postal or Hatred as our points of comparison if it would help. I’m sure someone somewhere has made such a game, and I’m absolutely sure you’d consider COD for “fun and escapism” and someone playing that sort of game is doing so “in bad faith” despite both playing a simulation of something that is definitely illegal and the core of the argument being that one causes the person to want to the illegal thing more and the other does not.
To be clear, when you say “seeded from” you mean an image that was analyzed as part of building the image classifying statistical model that is then essentially running reverse to produce images, yes?
And you are arguing that every image analyzed to calculate the weights on that model is in a meaningful way contained in every image it generated?
I’m trying to nail down exactly what you mean when you say “seeded by.”