CSAM
We can’t believe we have to say this, but this has now come up enough times for us to find it necessary to explain: AI-CSAM is in fact actively harmful to real people and children, and is in no way a “victimless crime.” AI’s ability to produce functionally infinite images powered by datasets containing millions of photographs of real people, including children, and real images of real CSAM, enshrines and perpetuates that abuse in a way that was previously impossible.
https://www.404media.co/ai-generated-child-sexual-abuse-material-is-not-a-victimless-crime/
CSAM
@KydiaMusic https://qoto.org/@olives/112523689531028852 It is also largely false and it doesn't appear this article has paid any particular attention to quality, instead opting for anything which might serve to give it "support".
Also, David is a guy who rather than reporting apparent issues to the developers of LAION quietly, appears to have instead waited however long to publish a hit piece for prestige. You can tell because of how close together the two events (publishing / taking down the dataset) were in time. How long would it have taken to organize everything he said he did? But, perhaps, I'm wrong and he is a wizard.
CSAM
@KydiaMusic Yup, you are 100% right. They are a troublesome bunch.
In fact, quite a few years ago, she used to write "shock" articles where a guy who frequented an abuse advocacy site (by his own words) and posted his own info was treated like the ultimate victim after being harassed by vigilantes.
She didn't speak up about less odious people being harassed though, particularly when QAnon was more of a thing.
Or where a serial abuser would be spoken about by a colleague of hers as if responsibility couldn't be attributed to him, even though he himself said he did it quite deliberately, before deciding to cease doing so.
Consistently, and repeatedly, they have offered up these inexplicable and bizarre takes. And really, it is quite rich for them to argue with random people on the Internet.
CSAM
@KydiaMusic It is like, really, the shock article people are here to lecture random people because they don't like their takes?
And while a large part of the article is fine, it goes too far into the offensive content side, rather than the ethics side.
And it is worth considering that this take here actually contradicts many of *their own* takes and seemingly because they don't like this particular technology. I'm trying to take a diplomatic tact here but I'm not impressed.
From the sounds of it, they have already had to tone down the article, and I wouldn't be surprised, if it was just axed.
At the end of the day though, it's really just someone's blog. There isn't really an editorial process to it. It's like four people covering lots of subjects. It might be useful for keeping up with current affairs but not for scientific analysis.
