johnnienaked

Of course sexual materials of all kinds will stimulate some people. This isn't an argument though, it's just an observation. Pedophiles often have no access to materials but get turned on by their own fantasies. Obviously all abuse material should be illegal, not because it stimulates feelings but because there are actual human victims involved. But with AI generated material, there isn't a victim (theoretically) so why should it be banned? Because it satisfies pedophiles? Or are you making an argument about adding fuel to a fire here- like if they watch AI porn they're more likely to go commit real crimes or get more deep into their twisted desires? Because that would be an argument, and one that I think has merit.

I think you missed the point. You can't know the full truth, because they are lying.

I'm saying what's arousing is subjective. No one tries to ban videos of someone getting beans poured on their head because it's consensual and there is no one getting hurt. But it is weird. An AI image of a naked child is not an image of a child (assuming no children in training data etc), and there is no victim. Some people are aroused by this but most people aren't. Why should it be banned? Make an argument.

They cherry pick financial data to make themselves look healthier than they are, which is all you need to know.

They said they have $72 BILLION dollars in note depreciation and you believed that?

Regulations can't save them. Everyone will just use open weights.

Meetings make people feel like they have accomplished something

Comedy of errors

I learned about people who get aroused from other people getting food dumped on them. Sounds weird, but it's a real thing. It's called sploshing.

No no, you misunderstand. If a photo generated of me killing someone is used to convict me of a killing that didn't happen

I think you're being overly emotional and haven't addressed any of my points. You just doubled down and said it's child porn again when I've stated to you a couple times that if the porn contains no child, it can't be child porn by definition.

And to be clear I'm not a consumer of such things nor am I attempting to normalize anything. I just want to find out the truth about stuff.

Expected to be treated as such until it's found out they aren't, right?

Like once the cop finds out the gun isn't real, he retracts the charges for arms trafficking. Right?

You've combined two crimes into one. Robbing a bank with anything is armed robbery. My analogy is apt.

If I get pulled over with an airsoft identical to an AK47 and charged with trafficking illegal firearms, I think you will agree that I shouldn't be. It's not an AK47, it's an airsoft.

Similarly, calling AI generated imagery CSAM might be a pure category error. If there is no C being SA, it's not CSAM by definition.

Now if that imagery came about because real CSAM material was in the training data, or because someone used AI to generate sexual imagery of a real person, that's a different story. You now have a derivative work based on a real crime with real victims. But we'd also have some very real and important questions to be asking the model trainers.

In a vacuum though? Sorry no, it doesn't make any sense.

Some materials aren't designed thus yet produce sexual feelings anyway. Some materials produced to generate sexual feelings produce disgust instead. This reasoning is why we have always seriously questioned the banning of anything.

March Andreessen will go wherever he can to do whatever it is he does