73
AI vigilante trap snares alleged paedophile ex-teacher in France (www.bbc.com)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Thing is, in a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove the defendant's guilt, hence they would need to prove that the defendant though they were pursuing somebody underage. How would they go about this?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    You have a toddler-level view of how laws work. "But I didn't say to kill them. I said to remove the problem." That, for example, didn't work for the mob, and nor is the shit you're spewing here going to work either.

    Again: the courts are not stupid. You're making childish arguments that would embarrass a "Free Man on the Land" with your "I assumed I was role-playing with a 21-year old" nonsense. (Doubly so since this was a video chat and the AI-created girl was not made up to look like a 21-year old play-acting 14.)

    Also, please stop acting as an apologist for pædos. It's really kind of gross. (And go ahead and bring in the pædo-evasion: "AKSCHUALLY IT'S EPHEBOPHILIA!)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You just admitted the "girl" was an AI video persona, which is possible to identify with a trained eye. Thus, there was video evidence that the "girl" was being deceptive and all traits they claimed about themselves were suspect. To quote Ready Player One, "she could be a 300-pound dude named Chuck."

    The defendant could claim actual 14 year olds would be unable to orchestrate such a setup with AI personas. Thus, it must have been an older person doing it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Again. Courts are not run by idiots, unlike, apparently, the pædo-apologists. None of that shit is going to fly in court.

    Go ahead. Test this. You seem so fucking eager to. Go for it. I'll fingerwave at your sentencing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    That, for example, didn’t work for the mob

    And yet, it's oddly difficult to convict a mob boss. Only when it was made illegal to be a member of the mob in the first place (RICO-act) was the US able to meaningfully push back the American mafia. Seems like it works to me.

    (Doubly so since this was a video chat and the AI-created girl was not made up to look like a 21-year old play-acting 14.)

    That is indeed a piece of evidence the prosecution could use to successfully get a conviction, because it disproves the assertion that the person thought they were chatting with an adult. Why didn't you bring this up earlier? You'd make a terrible lawyer. And the fact that you bring it up as an afterthought shows that you don't think of it is important. It's almost like you care more about what the person has been accused of, rather than whether they actually did it.

    Also, please stop acting as an apologist for pædos. It’s really kind of gross. (And go ahead and bring in the pædo-evasion: "AKSCHUALLY IT’S EPHEBOPHILIA!)

    I'm defending the god given right of every man to a fair trial, whatever they may be accused of. Your belief that basic rights go out the window once the crime somebody is accused is significantly heinous enough is antithetical to rule of law and harmful to society as a whole. And, ironically, it makes it easier for real criminals to evade justice by making it easier to convict the innocent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •