782
Why would Elon block a bill banning AI-generated child porn? (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/enoughmuskspam@lemmy.world
160 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 80 points 1 month ago (51 children)

This image seems like misleading bull shit. This seems to be the law referenced: https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-artificial-intelligence-nudification-x-elon-musk-deepfake-131184be939d540de093b567b12c9e16

It makes companies liable for people using ai for nudification (which of course includes children). Musk argues the law is a bit to far reaching ( claims the law considers some body parts, that are commonly displayed in public, as private parts and also that the company can get in trouble for people nudifying themselves).

I don't know how legitimate Musk's concerns are, but the image is extremely misleading.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 51 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    The damages are brought up in a civil trial, so I guess while someone could bring a case to trial for nudifying themselves, I imagine it'd be tossed out immediately:

    An individual depicted in an image or video that was nudified in violation of this section may bring a civil action in district court against the person who violated this section

    These are the body parts listed:

    "Intimate parts" includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (14 children)

    I have no issues with completely banning those parts for children. Only a sick fuck like Elon would say any of those are normal to see on a child.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    You can see most of that on my baby pictures.

    From what I understand the law applies to adults too.

    I'm all for stopping pedophiles, but laws need controlled scope and nuance. Reality is complex and I don't want to see innocent stuff criminalized more than we do already.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    So, you think it's ok for people to nudify you? How about your mother? Sister? It's not ok to nudify anyone without their consent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, even for adults I feel this borders way too close on deepfakes. We needed to ban those years ago. I simply do not see any artistic nor educational context to justify nudifying someone without consent.

    And this isn't unheard of, even in America. Even with caricatures you can wander close to libel if you're drawing someone like that .

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    There's a difference between baby pictures and an AI generating nudes images from clothed pictures.

    If you want to make nude fanart so bad, learn to draw.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    If you want to eat hot food so bad, learn to cook over a fire. Electrical heat is evil for some unspecified reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Hello bad faith argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Yes, that's the point. It was bullshit logic when you used it too.

    If I "just learn to draw" I can use it to draw nudes of people from clothed images. Or use photoshop.

    There’s a difference between baby pictures and an AI generating nudes images from clothed pictures.

    Do you think this legislation has the nuance to handle even a distinction that broad? I don't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    You can see most of that on my baby pictures.

    Sure, but it's one thing if your parents took a picture of you having a bath in the sink. It's another if someone took a picture of a baby at a beach then asked grok to generate an image of them having a bath in the sink.

    The nuance here is somebody is using AI to generate these images, not that these images exist. Much like how it's legal and reasonable for me to take nude pictures to share with my partner, but it is not legal or reasonable for someone we don't know to take nude pictures of me through my window to send to my partner. The pictures exist in both situations, how they were obtained matters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    My issue with a lot of these laws is a lack of this nuance.

    And the unspoken idea that they can reasonably know the context. How can the AI bot know if consent was acquired? This is a practical concern, if you require the sufficiently improbable you are essentially banning a thing in all contexts. Even me making a photo of myself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children)

    I am fine with people being unable to use AI to make nude photos of themselves in order to prevent people using AI to make nude images of others.

    You need to consider the risk of letting anyone being allowed to make a nude image of anyone, versus the "cost" of if you want a nude photo of yourself you'll just have to take it in the mirror.

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

    Most phone cameras use AI image enhancement. I'd need to buy a film camera to take a nude selfie. It's hamfisted overreach into the lives of the general public.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Yeah, its not naked kids specifically but "nudification" in general. And what's considered private? A woman's chest? OK but how far down? Stuff like that.

    I'd imagine Google or Apple or any tech/AI company would do the same to protect their product or whatever. But they make it seem like this was a tool Elon specifically designed so he can see naked kids.

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

    Elon's under the most scrutiny because Grok is the least restricted LLM. Of course om reasonably worried that they are blocking this for less savory reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    Literally nothing that Racist PedoFascist does in legitimate. He just doesn't want to be sued because he made CP machine which I garuntee he gets high AF to and jerks off to. Especially since Epstein wouldn't let him on the island.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    here’s a quick way to determine if the concerns are legit:

    are they from a capitalist? yes? then they are not legit concerns because fuck what they think. they **should be responsible ** for what ppl do on their platforms.

    heck it’s why i worry about my own federated instance. my server is now beholden to content i did not create? nope. not gonna take that risk.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    The government is capitalist as well, this doesn't have much to do with the political spectrum.

    It's a bit weird that you say they should be responsable and then mention the problems that it causes for smaller platforms like Lemmy. Your argument goes against your point. No instance would be able to take that risk.

    That being said, at this point, it seems clear that X is literally trying to encourage it and isn't actually moderating properly it's platform.

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

    no see. i recognize that i can’t do it because i can’t afford what would be required to do it. this doesn’t mean i won’t donate to a service i feel needs help. just that i won't do it alone. a co-op lemmy instance is… very much not the same as a capitalist corporation run by a trillionaire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    This new law ups what is required, to the point where I don't think any Lemmy instances would be able to meet it.

    I don't think the law was written so it differentiates between X and Lemmy, though I might be mistaken.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    fair point and i’m not holding firm to imperfect ideas. also, here’s the thing: i think “if you host it you are responsible.” even if it’s a small lemmy instance or x.

    because, small hosts will get swatted and shot. large corp hosts have lawyers. so .. they must all be responsible for what they host if that level of gap exists. i remember hosting in the 90’s, and even my own crap was stupid - just a db of payphone numbers, stuff like that for phreaks. i wasn’t stileproject lol. but … if a used posted shit, it was still on my server. (a beefy! 486 dx/2!)

    i mean sure, maybe we could claim “if you are a corp, then responsible, if you are a non profit or self hosted then no..” but the thing abt the net is - any hole, anywhere, eventually gets filled with csam and horseshit. it fucking sucks. but it’s true.

    if corps were held accountable for that which they allow, the massive bulk of the problems would disappear, just from a ratio pov, no? ignoring the other problem that musk wants to be allowed to host csam because he profits from it and is a pedo as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago*

    just because someone is evil doesn't mean everything they say is wrong. heck, even nick fuentes sometimes stumbles ass backwards into a cogent point

    granted it's completely by accident but still

    the point is, if you assume what's good for him is bad for you because he's a capitalist, you'll be right about 90% of the time, but that's the same error rate AI summaries have and you should definitely double check those

    should xAI be responsible for people using it to photoshop people's heads onto other people's naked bodies? yeah

    can you infer this fact solely from the fact that elon musk disagrees? NO

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I haven't looked at this in depth, but some of the scholars I follow have suggested that this law is legally problematic, and there are good arguments to strike it down under the first amendment and section 230.

    Section 230 is the federal safe harbor law that shields social media from liability for their users content, provided they take certain reasonable steps to moderate the user content. The federal law will preempt this Minnesota state law if they conflict.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    But in the case of AI, it's company a generated content.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    So is adobe liable content created or altered in photoshop? You can see AI as an advanced computing platform that comes with a free "worker". A worker that the user controls and the company can't really.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    If Elon can make his AI spout right wing talking points, he can make it censor itself from making nude images of children, and if he can't, he deserves the full weight of the law against him. This isn't free speech, it's csam, and I don't care what excuses and get out clauses you want to invent, stopping it is right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    And this is why whether it's Reddit or this site it doesn't make a difference. Clickbait and dumb people always dominate the conversation and nuance is immediately thrown out the window because nuance does not translate well on the internet when you are trying to gather points.

    The worst part is that this guy actually has endless things you can point to to show what a scumbag he is but yet there has to be stuff like this that delegitimizes opposition to him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Fuck that, he should be 100% liable if he sells a machine that is ised to make child porn wtf you mean clickbait. This is the only way to stop it, otherwise it's going to happen because the companies will make money off it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago

    Because law needs to be very precise and nuanced otherwise you end up with complete nonsense laws that infringe on the rights of people. I 100% agree AI child porn is awful and should be figured out. But if the law is no crafted correctly it creates problems. It's clickbait because the image just implies that Elon Musk is in favor of people generating child porn but I'm sure its more nuanced than that if you take a look. Thats all I'm saying

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Government wanting to blame tools instead of what people do with the tools.

    Next we should make Milwaukee stop selling saw zaws because they cut down flock cameras, or hammers because they can beat people in the head.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •