Virtual Paedophiles

There is an article on the BBC front page about paedophiles using AI to generate “fake” child porn and I must admit I find myself somewhat in two minds, so thought I’d consult the great STW hive mind as I’m sure lots of you will have a much clearer view of this issue than I do.

I’ve always been faintly troubled by the fact that somebody can have their life ruined because they clicked on something they shouldn’t have online. It seems to be getting close to thought crime.  But I’ve always been persuaded by the argument that every image is a recording of a crime and anyway I’m not sure I care enough about paedophiles to want to go into bat for them. But I’m struggling to see the difference between an AI generated image and art/literature.

In the article they quote the police chief as saying “it would be wrong to argue that because no real children were depicted in such “synthetic” images – that no-one was harmed.” But their argument seems to be that “a paedophile could move along that scale of offending from thought, to synthetic, to actually the abuse of a live child”. Well of course they could, but we don’t arrest people for what they could do, or we’d all be in trouble.

Rusks anyone?

In the article they quote the police chief as saying “it would be wrong to argue that because no real children were depicted in such “synthetic” images – that no-one was harmed.” But their argument seems to be that “a paedophile could move along that scale of offending from thought, to synthetic, to actually the abuse of a live child”. Well of course they could, but we don’t arrest people for what they could do, or we’d all be in trouble.

If a cop or any member of the criminal justice system said contrary or supported it I’d be very bloody surprised. Their chosen profession would fully preclude them from taking a supportive stance as part of their roles, especially the police as the proactive prevention of crime is part of their remit.

Many years ago I reported on a court case of an old bloke who’d been nicked with composite photograph/pencil indecent images of children.

He was convicted of possession of indecent images IIRC. I think it’s probably correct that such material is illegal, regardless of whether it’s actual photos, AI or newspaper and pencil collages.

AI gives the technical capability, not the moral choices on how it is used.

The question moves from was it and actual child or an AI generated one to a question of should it be legal to want to see or own such images.

What images are acceptable and which are not : https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/broken-images

a question of should it be legal to want

That really would be thought crime….

Well of course they could, but we don’t arrest people for what they could do, or we’d all be in trouble.

We already have plenty of offenses on statute for things you could do eg possession of an offensive weapon, going equipped etc.

The crime for which you are arrested / prosecuted harms no one….

I’ve always been faintly troubled by the fact that somebody can have their life ruined because they clicked on something they shouldn’t have online.

Is this even a thing? I mean I’ve never once thought to myself; I know, today I’ll search for kiddie porn and see what turns up. As for the Cop’s comment, well of course he says that, Images of this sort are illegal, it’s a clear as day, it doesn’t matter how they’re generated.

But I’m struggling to see the difference between an AI generated image and art/literature.

there is a difference between art and porn. porn is created with the sole intention to sexually arouse where as art is far more nuanced. i don’t think ai child porn is designed with aesthetics in mind, though no doubt it could be argued that the images are designed to provoke reactions other than one that is sexual.

the intention of the person who created the images would need to be considered along with it’s artistic contribution, but really 99 times out of 100 i think everyone would see what the intention was.

it’s a very interesting question and makes me think of video games or tv shows that depict graphic violence and crime. there are controls on these things for a reason.

ask yourself, if you learned that  someone who you know possessed sketches of children being sexually abused or raped, would you think that they were potentially dangerous and in need of help? how would you feel about someone collecting nazi memorabilia?  or hoarding guns?

as a society we need to decide when something is unacceptable.

or hoarding guns?

What about hoarding virtual guns eg in Minecraft?

Should they be locked up as well?

Or killing someone in a video game…

Thinking about ie, as a society we are 100% ok with killing people in video games, but abusing a child in a video game would be a complete outrage. I find that a bit of a conundrum…

someone collecting nazi memorabilia

Now ya see…

I own two German coins from 1943. They have swastikas and eagles on them. I have no other ‘stuff’ like this.

Does that make me a collector of Nazi memorabilia? I own them because of their history and they give me chills whenever I handle them but I’m no danger to anyone. So should I be censured? Really??

hmm it seems the post that I’m quoting from has disappeared!

From a practical point of view – how does the AI generate this sort of thing? Doesn’t it need some sort of correctly tagged real images in the web archives to reproduce it?

Does that make me a collector of Nazi memorabilia?

^^ >> I wouldn’t click on it with a 40 foot barge pole <<
This was a subject that poor old Pete Townshend was (genuinely)trying to research for the greater good.
What could possibly go wrong.

What about hoarding virtual guns eg in Minecraft?

Should they be locked up as well?

Or killing someone in a video game…

Thinking about ie, as a society we are 100% ok with killing people in video games, but abusing a child in a video game would be a complete outrage….

minecraft i’d quite odd in that you can kill innocent people. grand theft auto, is widely criticized, there was a game a long while back that was banned because of the violence. however, most killing in video games is done in a war scenario i think, so is to some extent socially acceptable.

but the obvious difference between hoarding guns in video games and AI child porn is that most people are born with the physical means to abuse a child, where as hoarding actual guns in the UK is not permitted.

i wouldn’t argue that violent video games or violence on tv are harmless, either

but i would argue that a gun collector doesn’t necessarily want to kill people, im not sure that the someone possessing AI generated child porn would have innocent intentions

most people would know that possessing images of child abuse for their own sexual gratification is very wrong.

i understand the question that you are asking, and i’m not getting hysterical because of the children, but i think generating ai images of illegal acts for sexual gratification is a way past a thought crime.

OP, do you have any children in your life? son, daughter, niece or nephew? a neighbour’s pleasant child? how would you feel if it was one of those children depicted in the images? or any specific child? would that move the idea of thought crime towards the physical?

From a practical point of view – how does the AI generate this sort of thing? Doesn’t it need some sort of correctly tagged real images in the web archives to reproduce it?

good question

From a practical point of view – how does the AI generate this sort of thing? Doesn’t it need some sort of correctly tagged real images in the web archives to reproduce it?

Very much this for me. The AI must be trained – hence I think the police are correct – its wrong to say no one was harmed in the creation of the images.

Is this even a thing?

It is. A mate of mine is a probation officer who works with sex offenders in the community and he’s told me all sorts of stories of people who’ve come across his desk who he firmly believes are not peadophiles but who made some pretty stupid momentary decisions while surfing the internet. Don’t think it’s very common (because they rarely get caught unless the cops are investigating something else) but it does happen.

Rusks anyone?

10 mins later and im still sniggering at this.

who made some pretty stupid momentary decisions while surfing the internet.

And why did the police come knocking? Mrs100th used to be PPU so investigated this stuff and is now OMU manages these offenders. A lot of her offenders believe they are innocent from the arse grabbers through the rapists to the kiddie fiddler’s, she’s still to meet one who has nothing concrete or corroborated against them.

Very much this for me. The AI must be trained – hence I think the police are correct – its wrong to say no one was harmed in the creation of the images.

I doubt that, at least I very much doubt there was much child porn involved. Lots of normal porn (which no doubt does harm some people), lots of photos of kids of all ages, and the AI just mixes them up.

he firmly believes are not peadophiles but who made some pretty stupid momentary decisions while surfing the internet.

I imagine it’s pretty hard to accidentally stumble across indecent pics of children. I suspect you have to actively go looking for it, in some dark corner of the web. I don’t think that’s a ‘momentary decision’.

Likewise, I also suspect the people that get done by the law for viewing this filth aren’t found guilty because they accidentally clicked on a link on one solidarity occasion, before immediately closing their browser …

there is a difference between art and porn. porn is created with the sole intention to sexually arouse where as art is far more nuanced.

And *you* might think this difference is very clear, but in reality you’re reliant on the police and courts agreeing with your interpretation. And they might not.

If drawing a picture of illegal porn is criminal (or, even owning such a picture) then why not other criminal acts?

Should we be arresting actors who play the part of murderers? I’m sure I’ve got some articles in my browser history that describe some unsavoury acts…such as the BBC news pages.

I imagine it’s pretty hard to accidentally stumble across indecent pics of children.

It’s probably easier than you think: search for enough “barely legal” porn or similar and I’d have thought you’d get at least some 16-17 year old girls.

I’ve seen Manga images that are quite problematic from that perspective. No, I’m not searching for links, nor did I save bookmarks. Should that be banned or regulated too? Clearly you cannot prove the age of a suitably drawn cartoon character but we all know what the designs are meant to evoke.

However, it could be a case of ‘or’ not ‘and’. Maybe better to have people looking at generated images instead of real ones?

If drawing a picture of illegal porn is criminal (or, even owning such a picture) then why not other criminal acts?

a picture of someone robbing a bank isn’t illegal, nor would be a picture of someone making child porn assuming that you could not see the abuse occurring.

handling the proceeds of a bank robbery is illegal.

However, it could be a case of ‘or’ not ‘and’. Maybe better to have people looking at generated images instead of real ones?

comes back to the question of how AI learns

Should we be arresting actors who play the part of murderers?

this is a bit of a leap.

Mogrim, firstly if that particular search phrase was in your your browsing history,  I would hope it was a trigger to put you on a “person of interest” list with the authorities as <span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”> that sounds awfully like you’re brazenly going out searching for the worst stuff possible. </span>

I’m fairly comfortable with images of non consesual abuse being illegal, whether its “real” people, AI or cartoons.

What images are acceptable and which are not : https://christianhistoryinstitute

Yeah, the christians are the ones to advise here! Me and a mate, long ago in pre-filtered internet times, challenged each other to send the most disgusting images off the web. Christian Fundamentalists with their “THIS IS WHAT YOU’LL GET ON THE INTERNET!!” images were the winners. I’d have probably forgotten we did this, but the scatological image I sent him disturbs him to this day 😆

I’m fairly comfortable with images of non consesual abuse being illegal, whether its “real” people, AI or cartoons.

Should images of murder be illegal too?

The Guardian has a video up right now of someone being shot. It might not have been illegal, that’ll take the courts to decide. Do you feel lucky enough to click on the link?

Does that make me a collector of Nazi memorabilia? I own them because of their history and they give me chills whenever I handle them but I’m no danger to anyone. So should I be censured? Really??

i see the point that you are making, but i was thinking more like a person who has a secret room full of flags, more like a shrine than a collection of historic artifacts. the connection to the AI porn being that they could claim to be a collector because they admire the graphic design.

is having nazi stuff illegal in the UK? genuine question.

anyway , time for me to get up and on with the day. probably won’t look back into this thread, as it has the look of something that will degenerate into point scoring and misunderstanding.

What about hoarding virtual guns eg in Minecraft?

In Minecraft’s defence, it doesn’t have guns at all. You can kill innocent creatures, e.g. animals or villagers, with the weapons you’d use to kill enemies (swords, usually), but there’s no game-reward gratification in it other than gaining animal meat or skins. It’s not like GTA where killing people actually rewards you in the game.

Back on topic, a friend is on the sex offenders register because his ISP reported him searching online for child abuse images. The sad thing is he was looking for images of himself as a child, to try and pursue a case against the man who’d abused him many years ago, because he knew there had been photographs and was trying to find them. He’d drawn crude pictures of what those images might look like – and those were also classed as “indecent images” when it was all investigated – so I don’t think it matters whether the images are AI generated, drawn in green crayon, or actual photographs.

Should images of murder be illegal too?

Obviously not.

Child abuse images are illegal for a specific reason. Whataboutery doesn’t apply here.

he firmly believes are not peadophiles but who made some pretty stupid momentary decisions while surfing the internet.

My understanding is that paedophiles develop their taste for paedophilia over a period of time. It might well start off as simply curiosity, at which point they are not actually paedophiles, but it then leads to ever greater exposure and an endless spiral of escalating depravity.

I believe that the curiosity is often triggered by boredom with mainstream porn.

So yeah, I am hugely comfortable with coming down like a ton of bricks on those who momentarily make a stupid mistake, even before they become full-on paedophiles.

is having nazi stuff illegal in the UK? genuine question.

No, there was a large auction recently, it was in the news as most large auction houses wouldn’t touch it, but one in NI went ahead IIRC.

Thing about paedos – and any sexual preference/urge/kink/fetish.. it can’t be helped*, can it? So letting them loose on AI, disgusting as it is to us normal folk, would give them an outlet without harming actual kids. Obviously you gotta lock em all up on a seperate island from the rest of humanity first, so they don’t “move along that scale of offending”…

*I had this discussion with a police officer who worked in child protection I was dating. I had to stop dating her cos she wanted to talk about her work too much and it was horrible.

Should images of murder be illegal too?

Images of children being sexual abused are created to satisfy the lust and desire that some people have for sexual abusing children, does anyone doubt that?

Images of a murder, in say an Agatha Christie film, are not created to satisfy the lust and desire that some people have for committing murder. In fact it is to satisfy people’s innate desire to see murder crimes solved and murderers apprehended.

I am surprised that needs to be explained.

Some points to ponder:

– AI isn’t as intelligent as you think – it gets trained on a bank of other images in order to create more similar images.  There’s still a victim (or actually lot of them) somewhere in the system.  I’m not sure transposing a non sexual image of kids into legal adult porn is in anyway not creating a victim.
– As AI gets better it becomes almost impossible to identify original images from AI modified ones.  If AI images were “exempt” you’d provide a nice defence for anyone caught this real images unless you can find the kid / room etc.
– creating a drawing from illegal images is likely viewed as creating a copy – which it the offence most people are prosecuted for (downloading by its nature creates a copy).
– dash – your probation officer friend sounds a bit dodgy to be honest; does he really believe that multiple people end up in front of him because they accidentally did something illegal.  Or does he mean, I might have clicked those links too.  Or if someone sent me those images I’d not have deleted them either.

I’ve seen Manga images that are quite problematic from that perspective

Hentai.

hentai
hĕn′tī″
noun
A style of sexually explicit comic books, animated video, and computer games originally developed in Japan.
A work of anime or manga (or any similar medium) that contains sexual or pornographic art.
Plural form of hentai.

Common in Japan, and covers a multitude of different types. There’s a lot of fanfic hentai, involving fictional characters from books, tv and cinema crossing over from different series and genres.
As a lot of manga and animé involves school kids, deciding just how old they are, relative to what they’re doing in relationships can get somewhat complicated and problematic, particularly when some artists styles can have adult characters looking very childlike.

I’m not particularly interested in animé or manga these days, and when I was, it was the likes of ‘Akira’, ‘Alita, Battle Angel’, ‘Neon Genesis Evangelion’, ‘Ghost in the Shell’, and ‘Grey’. Even ‘Neon Genesis Evangelion’ had school kids, teenagers as the main characters, and their relationships could, to some extent, seem a bit problematic.

Still, when you consider that many US states allow legal marriage of a 14yo to an adult, things are even more complicated.

Not really sure what I think about that. Bottom line is there are people whose sexual arousal and pleasure is totally linked to children, and it’s natural for people to want to at least partly satisfy those desires. Other than total abstension, which might be realistic for some but not all, is this just the best option? Basically a methadone analogue, a way of meeting an unavoidable desire with a least-bad option, for those that there’s no good alternatives?

But then, there is probably a tranche of potential users who resist because they hate how the material is produced, who might be drawn back into it by the AI images, and there’s probably a likelihood of more and more extreme material becoming available for the same reason, stuff that people can’t stomach or that would be stamped out if it were real can definitely be tolerated when it’s not, that happens already. But is the effect on the brain any different? Does it normalise things that shouldn’t be?

In the end, is it purely a balance of harm thing or is there a higher morality than that? And if it’s balance of harm, how do we make that calculation? Are we just guessing?