264
25 arrested in global hit against AI-generated child sexual abuse material
(www.europol.europa.eu)
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2025
264 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
64937 readers
4000 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah can't imagine why evidence of child rape would deserve special consideration. We only invented the term CSAM, as opposed to CP, specifically to clarify when it is real, versus the make-believe of 'wow, this would be bad, if it wasn't made up.'
Do you think CGI of a dead body is the same as murder?
That'd be bad if it was real! It'd be murder! But it - fucking - isn't, because it's not real.
I must underline, apparently: the entire reason for using the term "child sexual abuse material" is to describe material proving a child was sexually abused. That's kinda fucking important. Right? That's bad in the way that a human person dying is bad. If you treated James Bond killing someone, in a movie, the same way you treated an actual human person dying, people would think you're insane. Yet every fucking headline about these renders uses the same language as if typing words into a program somehow fucked an actual child.
There's a reputable source for the terminology usage.
If you want to keep defending CG CSAM, take it up with the professionals
"The professionals are also full of shit" is not much of an argument.
I'm going to hold the words of the people who are actually fighting against child exploration in much higher regard than someone who is defending AI-generated CSAM/CSEM. And honestly, I don't understand why you're defending it. It's weirding me out..lol
As I wrote in another comment,
You can ask the model to generate murder scenes. You then have AI-generated images of murder scenes. That doesn't mean anybody was killed.
That's all this is.
Or that any child was "explored."
I'm fucking disappointed that anyone professionally engaged in this wants to equate damning evidence of physical abuse with generic representation of the concept - for the exact reasons already described.
There is an insurmountable difference between any depiction of a sex crime involving fictional children - and the actual sexual abuse of real living children. Fuck entirely off about throwing aspersions for why this distinction matters. If you don't think child rape is fundamentally worse than some imagined depiction of same - fuck you.
That's not what it is.
Just like AI-generated murder scenes are not being equated to physical evidence of someone having been murdered.
I think you're getting caught up in semantics. Can we at least agree that those AI-generated images are bad?
"Generated sexual abuse" is explicitly being equated to actual child rape.
These 25 people were not charged with thinkin' real hard about the possibility of murder. The sting is described like they were caught doing some murder.
The 25 people charged may have had other incriminating evidence against them.
If you take issue with the law, take it up with the jurisdictions.
If you think it should be perfectly okay for people to produce AI-generated CSEM, then I'm not really sure we can come to an agreement here.