This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Pretty sure the actual CP played a bigger role in the sentencing
Yeah this is a scary, clickbaity headline meant to invoke a negative response about AI. AI is a tool, like a computer or pipe wrench. It can be used for good or bad.
The sicko got what he deserved, but the AI bit is rather over-the-top.
The part that freaks me out is more that he was in an influential position in children's lives and he was making images of the specific children who were his patients.
This is unfortunately not that uncommon. Pedos often work in child focused jobs. Very disturbing, and that's why background checks are important in those fields.
Not only pedos, in general sadistic people tend to try and get jobs which would give them the feeling of power over someone, and not all of them can be dictators, warlords, just politicians, even lowly prison guards or policemen, also cowardice is a factor. So - child-related jobs.
But, to be frank, I'm not sure background checks are going to do that much good. People of this kind tend to bunch together, help each other, and can either get past the radar rather easy or utilize these checks to discredit anybody who'd be a threat to them.
It's a complex matter.
Which makes you wonder why religious groups can get around the requirements. I am actually not against say the Church of LDS spending money to provide free therapy for children I just want those therapists held to the same standards we hold regular therapists too. Which includes sexual background screenings.
Is it honestly that surprising? Just because they are sexually attracted to kids does not mean they cannot love kids on an emotional level. I don’t think it’s impossible that there would be pedophiles who both love children and recognize that sexual and intimate contact is reprehensible.
Put differently, I would much rather hear “child psychiatrist caught with computer-generated CSAM modeled after his patients” than “child psychiatrist caught with nude photos of his patients” or “child psychiatrist charged with sexual assault of a minor”. Comparatively speaking, the first is really just computer-assisted thoughtcrime, while the others mean there was actual direct harm to a child.
Although in this particular instance, child psychiatrist is a bit too close to the child, in my opinion.
Exactly, it's not the AI bit, it's the rest of the story about how this dude was in a position of power to exploit children (and did so) that's just fucking sick.
In this case there are several crimes, but in the other one mentioned about a korean there is nothing, only possession of generated content arguing that there is high realism (someone could say the same even of a sketch). To imprison for acts that have neither victims nor any harm either directly or indirectly, is more aberrant than possessing that.
PS: I'm just talking about legality and rights, I know it's controversial and I'm sure someone has something to argue against it, but if you're going to accuse me of being a pedo just get lost you moron.
I agree with what you are saying.
however, I think psychologists might not be a fan of giving them access to that material. I think the reason is because they would end up looking fore more and more extreme material and they could end up offending as a result of that
Afaik we're still yet to find out whether viewing AI-generated material makes an individual look for real-life child abuse imagery.
I believe viewing the latter allows many to keep real-life urges under control (might re-check materials on that), but it obviously comes with its own issues. If we can make AI generated child pornography, and if it doesn't make people go look for the "real stuff", we might actually make a very positive impact on child safety.
According to the few studies we have in the nineties and aughts most people who have sexual attractions to kids are aware acting on them can be harmful and will turn to alternative ways to explore them (when they can't be suppressed or redirected.) So yes, now we have victimless ways to produce porn, the objections are to the fetishes themselves, not to resulting violent behavior.
That said people commonly and openly express their distaste for such people, more so than domestic violence offenders who assault their kids, just not sexually. The same general disdain for child-sex-attracted adults does not transfer to action to feed children or protect them from abusive households.
That said, when we've worried about fiction driving people to act it out in reality, historically this has been demonstrated wrong every single time. Women are not driven to scandal and harlot behavior from trashy romance. Teens are not driven to violence from violent movies or video games. We can expect porn featuring childreb is not going to compell someone to seek to actually sex-assault kids.
He used a web based stable diffusion to generate CP. Absolute genius level move 😂
Things to never say before committing a crime:
"Wait, let me sign in with my Google account first."
Our legal system basically relies on the fact that criminals are that stupid.
Same for our political system.
Healthcare should be built for assuming everybody is an idiot, but instead you need a degree in medical codes invoicing
People have been caught making bomb threats using their own phones. Some people are just not bright enough to be able to survive in this world.
It's for people like them that you have to have signs everywhere that say things like, don't stick your hand in the crushy grindy place, this hot water is hot, and don't drink bleach you'll die.
You would be surprised how many absolutely idiotic Pedos are out there
People in general really. Some of the stuff your average person does on the internet and their devices absolutely stumps me, and I'm not even that tech savvy.
They should become a Republican speaker. Then they'll get a TON of support from the Protect The Children crowd!
Or a pastor so the church can relocate them to a fresh batch of victims.
why the FUCK
Pedos are gonna pedo.
Jesus fuck
Blocking any/all users of the "it's just art" and the "no kids were actually used so it's not child pornography" crowds.
Christ, the comments just kept getting worse.
I mean for people that are providing a moral defense of this? Yeah, no, fuck them into the sun.
But from a legal perspective, that's kind of the problem isn't it? Because no kids are involved in the actual production of the images, this creates a huge legal question - isn't this constitutionally protected in countries that have Freedom of Expression/Speech?
I mean this is obviously vile and this person is a danger to children... but would this be illegal in the USA and Canada and other countries that have freedoms that make it very difficult to prosecute this kind of speech?
There's also the wrinkle that it's being made of real people. Not just that it's kids in general, but real, actual, specific kids. Most countries have some form of "use of likeness" protections, but that's essentially making this into a copyright dispute, and a pretty grey one at that.
Not sure what laws the states or Canada have, but it's considered child pornography if it's a depiction of CSA, regardless of whether it's an adult acting, or cartoons, or AI. I suspect at least some states in the US have similar laws.
That's an extremely limited take on it that I would expect from Sunday rags. "I have made up my mind, and since I decide, I will simply make sure that nobody gets to discuss this."
Thanks, reddit, can you fuck off back there now?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
"As a child psychiatrist, Tatum knew the damaging, long-lasting impact sexual exploitation has on the wellbeing of victimized children," said US Attorney Dena J.
The trial evidence cited by the government includes a secretly-made recording of a minor (a cousin) undressing and showering, and other videos of children participating in sex acts.
"Additionally, trial evidence also established that Tatum used AI to digitally alter clothed images of minors making them sexually explicit," prosecutors said.
"Specifically, trial evidence showed that Tatum used a web-based artificial intelligence application to alter images of clothed minors into child pornography."
In prepared remarks [PDF] delivered at a US Senate subcommittee hearing earlier this year, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, "GPT-4 is 82 percent less likely to respond to requests for disallowed content compared to GPT-3.5, and we use a robust combination of human and automated review processes to monitor for misuse.
A recent report from investigative organization Balkan Insight says groups like Thorn have been supporting CSAM detection legislation to make online content scanning compulsory in part because they provide that service.
The original article contains 457 words, the summary contains 177 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Wtaf are these comments.
Go home you sick fucks.
It's worse than reddit up in here. At least the psychos calling AI CP "art" would be met with comments that would be upvoted even more, not down voted into the negatives.
I’ve been reporting them. That shit can go back to Reddit where it’s encouraged.
Pandora's box has been opened.
A bit sensationalist there - article states he'd videoed minors in sexual acts. Probably what got him his well deserved prison stint.
Though I must say, the AI part alone should be enough to rule him out of a career around kids!
