top | item 40398372

(no title)

ritwikgupta | 1 year ago

This is a misinformed and incorrect take. The PROTECT Act of 2003 [0] makes it illegal to possess CSAM that is generated by superimposing faces of minors onto sexually explicit imagery, or vice versa.

This bill predates generative AI models by decades. There is no need to engage in conspiracy theories here — the law is clear that this kind of imagery is illegal.

[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/151

discuss

order

soulofmischief|1 year ago

It's not misinformed or incorrect. I'm aware of the current law and how it stand in opposition to the first amendment. Reread my post.

> There is no need to engage in conspiracy theories here

Please do not mischaracterize my post in such a light. There are no conspiracy theories here.

There are ongoing, completely public, campaigns by both the Executive and Legislative branch to regulate access to generative models. There is a reason this press release vaguely uses the term "deepfake", which is completely distinct from dragging and dropping a minor's face onto an adult's body. Whether that reason is deliberate or negligent, it still serves the greater purpose.

The debate over access to generative models with respect to CSAM has been hot for a while now, to ignore that debate and characterize my post as perpetuating conspiracy theories is just disingenuous.

ritwikgupta|1 year ago

1. The PROTECT Act provisions have repeatedly been upheld by both appellate the Supreme Court as constitutional as long as the CSAM in question meets the Miller or Ferber standards. Either the law is constitutional, or you’re proposing that the courts are illegitimate, the latter of which is conspiratorial.

2. You are right that there is a campaign to limit access to open source generative AI models, but it is not an initiative led by the government. Companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are leading the charge when it comes to emphasizing the danger of open source models and are lobbying every day to limit access. The executive and legislative branches are following suit with what industry executives tell them because they are deferred to as experts.

Industry policy teams have invented vague, ill-defined terms such as “frontier models” and equate these models as having the same power as nuclear weapons. They have a vested interest in being the sole controllers of this technology.

If you want to counter governmental efforts to limit access to such models, start by countering the FUD pushed by industry in this space.