Police investigation remains open. The photo of one of the minors included a fly; that is the logo of Clothoff, the application that is presumably being used to create the images, which promotes its services with the slogan: “Undress anybody with our free service!”
Nowhere, at least for any model you could get your hands at in public places like civitai. Or, well, it’s not like they can tell whether someone trained on those kinds of pictures but they’re rightly nuking any underage/loli example images, as well as anyone who posts them, from orbit.
Generally speaking models can be very good at mixing concepts they have an understanding of, say a giraffe with zebra stripes, but that doesn’t mean that you can just combine anything – if you try to generate a nude human with zebra fur you’re bound to get body paint, random skimpy zebra-striped clothing, or at most a fursuit, not convincing fur, unless you use a model trained by furries but at that point you’ll have trouble generating faces without muzzles: The AI just doesn’t know how actual zebrakin look like so it’s either copping out or making stuff up.
I’ve never tried nor am I remotely attracted to that age range but I wouldn’t be surprised if a paedophile would complain “these aren’t kids they’re scaled-down adults”. Things like the difference between budding and small breasts, ask a biologist I haven’t seen 14yold breasts in over two decades.
On another note though I’d much rather have paedophiles jack off to generated images than doing anything involving actual children, including creeping around. Lesser of two evils and all that. Therapy, of course, is preferable to both.
How do you know that these people replace harassment with these pictures? And not just do both, or even increase their fetishes?
What about the girls who’s pictures were used as material for these generated images?
deleted by creator
AFAIK psychologists simply don’t know, and it might be a case by case thing.
As I explained, it might not be necessary to have any underage material in the training data.
Generally speaking I didn’t come here to have a deep discussion about a very difficult moral and legal issue, I’ll leave that up to the specialists. I wanted to say something about AI and somehow all answers I get are about the last tacked-on paragraph making a quick statement about me preferring keeping paedophiles away from kids.
deleted by creator
I’ll leave the judgement of that to psychologists. What should not be controversial, however, is the amount of direct harm avoided if one can be replaced by the other.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the less shitty.
deleted by creator
I did not suggest anything. I expressed a preference: That it’s better if a paedophile jacks off to generated pictures than if they molest actual children. What do you disagree with, there? That both situations are equally bad, that an equal amount of harm is occurring? Have you ever asked a victim about that.
Just for the record: Not by a far stretch all countries outlaw drawings, fiction, etc., but only as the German term goes “documents of child abuse”.
You mean your accusation and I tend to do that for civility’s sake as doing otherwise tends to result in shouting matches. It is AFAIK currently unknown whether, by and large, paedophiles having access to simulated material for their sexual gratification increases or decreases the incidence of child abuse happening. I have no idea either, you don’t know better either, and it may very well differ on a case-by-case basis. All I’m saying is that I’d rather have them fapping than molesting children is that so hard to understand and why in the everloving fuck would you disagree with that: If anything it’s you who’s trivialising child abuse (and, look, see, I stopped to ignore your incitement and we’re in an accusatory shouting match)
deleted by creator
I MENTIONED A THIRD ONE IN THE SAME FUCKING PARAGRAPH.
You’re not arguing in good faith so get fucked.
deleted by creator
I asked whether you really meant what I read, you made a statement claiming I said things I very obviously didn’t (because I said the exact opposite).
Had you instead asked “Did you mean to imply that there’s only two options, that we really must select one?” you might have realised that I did, in fact, offer a third one from the very start.
You might not have intended to argue in bad faith but the result is still the same. If we had been talking about what chocolate pudding I would’ve let it slide but given the topic not applying high standards is irresponsible. Be careless in any other argument, but not here. If you want to claim to take the topic seriously then do.